[TennetClean]

In my humble opinion, not that i know anything about fitting systems!

the outreach frame and system is suitable for the job and the brackets would hold out in accident.

i have seen a few that have been in accidents in last 5 years after installation and the brackets do not rip out, i would sooner the brackets than a ratchet strap to the so called ratchet points.

outreach do have some form of testing done on there brackets via an outside company.

This from the man who sells systems as to people as DIY fit.  LOL

No offense mate but I wont take anything you say about safety seriously.

In my "humble opinion" you are highly irresponsible and not to mention hypocritical.  I would never sell a car to someone if I knew the brakes were faulty, because if they hurt themselves I know the blood would be on mt hands.  You are doing exactly the same in my opinion.  How can you ever claim to hold life as valuable.

Just my opinion though.

(Just ignore my opinion when your banking your money for these DIY install systems you are selling.)

[L.J.Thorpe]

So lets get Thorpe's rig AND an Ionics one,.. drive both of them at a wall at 50mph.

In the interest of fairness I think Ionics should supply one at the same price Thorpe is asking,...

once again i am up for it 
suits me fine anyone from ionics want to take up the offer

[David Slater]

Ooooh, a bit of heated debate!

OK, seeing as I seemed to have sparked this off, let me try and clarify my points -

1. Ionics have done a GOOD THING by bringing the safety aspect of carrying a system around in a vehicle. I commend them for this.

2. I have issues that some people may think their system is now 'safe' no matter what speeds they travel at.

3. The Ionics idea is good. It is NOT perfect. It will be superceded with a better design.

4. The vehicle will indeed have passed it own Ncap tests...but without a tonne of water being fastened to its chassis. How will this affect the vehicles performance in a crash?....above speeds of 30/40mph?

5. I think its true to say (and the board messages highlight this!) most vans are running at close to their maximum payloads.

Fastening the system to the chassis via straps or bolts is NOT ideal.
OK, so we've fastened the system to the chassis and we've surrounded it in a lovely metal cage to protect it.....what we have actually done is created an object that if (or when) it leaves those bolts through failure (of van or bolt) remains intact and comes hurtling towards the driver/passenger.

Thinking along the lines of car manufacturers, they realised that keeping everything intact isnt really the best solution. Things should be made to break, fracture, come off and crumple.

Your bumpers will now 'swoop up' a pedestrian. Your engine bolts are designed to 'fail' and let the engine travel downwards to the ground. Your front and rear ends will now 'crumple' absorbing impact.....I think you see what I'm getting at!

Most guys are running at (or very close) to their vehicles payload. But this weight isnt evenly distributed throughout the payload area. It is concentrated into one spot. And that system usually has some form of metal cage to protect it.   

A perfect system will eventually incorporate some form of 'safety pod' for the driver and passenger......probably some form of roll cage type affair.

The system itself will be designed to break/shatter on impact - thus dissipating its energy....I would rather get wet than get hit with a tonne of water/steel cage.

To include extra safety will require the use of a heavier vehicle (to cope with the additional 'safety cell' (or roll cage type affair) or downsizing the tank.

We like the idea of safety but dont want to go that far....so we choose a handful of bolts/welds/straps. 

If we want a 'safe' system its available.... At a cost and at a weight penalty.

As I said, Ionics system is laudable....but NOT the answer.

Again, let me emphasise, this applies just as much to a DIY system or Thorpe's or Ionics.

.....but only Ionics have made claims about 'safety'

 

[Clive McDonald]

So it might be better to get soaked than squished. Thats not hard to do, put a fail into the lid section of the water box and on impact the lid would fail and the water would shoot out the top. In normal use this weak point of the structure wouldn't matter.

There you are problem solved.

[[GQC] Tim]

So it might be better to get soaked than squished. Thats not hard to do, put a fail into the lid section of the water box and on impact the lid would fail and the water would shoot out the top. In normal use this weak point of the structure wouldn't matter.

There you are problem solved.

What about drowning though? (  )

[L.J.Thorpe]

so crash mine and see what happens
may be a tank with weak spots
held in place with straps
or some device like an airbag that ruptures tank on impact
or restraining straps that work on the inertia reel system or summat like it
to brake the movement of the tank
dispersing the energy

[tonyoliver]

so if  i crash its INSULT AND INJURY

and i thought trad woul be the finish of me
now  i am wfp i honestly dont know what will kll me

[L.J.Thorpe]

dont sweat it tony
i think its a safe bet that more window cleaners die falling off ladders than get crushed to death by their tanks in a crash
nice set up btw

[Clive McDonald]

The more i think of it the more certain I am. The thatcham test is irrelevant and insurers and legislatures will see this too. What matters is that on impact the lid comes off.

Come on physicists tell me i'm wrong.

Ionics have spent a fortune on this dead end technology. What a waste of money. They should have come and asked us. What boneheads.

[L.J.Thorpe]

or several weakened "lids"
one on each side of tank
wired to an airbag charge even
crash bang splash
and straps instead of cage

[twt]

i thought for a while that is would be a good idea to have a system that splits the tank in the event of a major impact as i would much rather be hit by a ton of water than a one ton plastic box.

[NWH]

The safest tank you`ll get www.plasticwatertanks.co.uk 1 on the website has a transporter with a custom flat tank,if it had full bulkhead you couldn`t get any safer.

[David Slater]

Ooooh, a bit of heated debate!

OK, seeing as I seemed to have sparked this off, let me try and clarify my points -

1. Ionics have done a GOOD THING by bringing the safety aspect of carrying a system around in a vehicle. I commend them for this.

2. I have issues that some people may think their system is now 'safe' no matter what speeds they travel at.

3. The Ionics idea is good. It is NOT perfect. It will be superceded with a better design.

4. The vehicle will indeed have passed it own Ncap tests...but without a tonne of water being fastened to its chassis. How will this affect the vehicles performance in a crash?....above speeds of 30/40mph?

5. I think its true to say (and the board messages highlight this!) most vans are running at close to their maximum payloads.

Fastening the system to the chassis via straps or bolts is NOT ideal.
OK, so we've fastened the system to the chassis and we've surrounded it in a lovely metal cage to protect it.....what we have actually done is created an object that if (or when) it leaves those bolts through failure (of van or bolt) remains intact and comes hurtling towards the driver/passenger.

Thinking along the lines of car manufacturers, they realised that keeping everything intact isnt really the best solution. Things should be made to break, fracture, come off and crumple.

Your bumpers will now 'swoop up' a pedestrian. Your engine bolts are designed to 'fail' and let the engine travel downwards to the ground. Your front and rear ends will now 'crumple' absorbing impact.....I think you see what I'm getting at!

Most guys are running at (or very close) to their vehicles payload. But this weight isnt evenly distributed throughout the payload area. It is concentrated into one spot. And that system usually has some form of metal cage to protect it.   

A perfect system will eventually incorporate some form of 'safety pod' for the driver and passenger......probably some form of roll cage type affair.

The system itself will be designed to break/shatter on impact - thus dissipating its energy....I would rather get wet than get hit with a tonne of water/steel cage.

To include extra safety will require the use of a heavier vehicle (to cope with the additional 'safety cell' (or roll cage type affair) or downsizing the tank.

We like the idea of safety but dont want to go that far....so we choose a handful of bolts/welds/straps. 

If we want a 'safe' system its available.... At a cost and at a weight penalty.

As I said, Ionics system is laudable....but NOT the answer.

Again, let me emphasise, this applies just as much to a DIY system or Thorpe's or Ionics.

.....but only Ionics have made claims about 'safety'

 

I would have thought most people have a valid MOT and there vehicles are fit for the road no matter what speed they do. If you mean they crashed at any speed carrying a full load most would have the sense to know they would be in trouble with or without a full load.

Ionic’s system doesn’t claim it to be perfect in any scenario, only you have mentioned the word perfect in a negative context.

You raise the issue of speed above 30mph to 40mph what next 50mph to 60mph? And then after that, What about a head on collision with two vehicles doing 70mph.

Ionic’s system does work, you have been proven wrong in your comments even thought they are written after Ionic’s have already done the test!

Oh for Gawds sake Ewan!!

Please keep up.

Ionics DOES work (up to 30mph). I do not dispute this fact.

Is it the answer long term? NO They have done more than most and should be awarded credit for that.

There are better methods, materials and ideas yet to be discovered.

Using your analogy, we should have stopped the technological developments at squeegies or possibly a rag and a bucket of water!!!

Other posters have mentioned some brilliant ideas (tops break off, tanks dispel water on impact) and so on...

Everything is evolving (and more so in window cleaning!) look at the WAHR regs or H&S statements or Risk Assessments???......indeed, look at the introduction of WFP?

Are you suggesting we should rest on our laurels and let a manufacturer (and salesman) dictate to us what is 'safe' or 'unsafe' for us to use?

I would rather listen to my peers for an informative viewpoint.

Somebody will come up with the answer to this thorny point of safety.....but I doubt it will be Ionics (and that is not a slant on Ionics).




I feel it will evolve from sites and discussions just like this.

[Nathanael Jones]

I like the idea of a tank that is designed to split on impact,... it seems quite a simple idea,..

Lets start pestering some manufacturers to design them!

[alanwilson]

been done a long time ago

the tanks allways rupture in a plance crash!!

I know!!

[David Slater]

I like the idea of a tank that is designed to split on impact,... it seems quite a simple idea,..

Lets start pestering some manufacturers to design them!

Nat,

I'm glad you (and some other posters - DWC included) can see what I'm saying.

I'm not knocking Ionics for the fun of it. I dont "Hate" Ionics.

I have doubts about the effectiveness (long term) of their "safety" devices. I feel there are indeed better solutions.

....I put forward the question and within 24 hours you guys are coming up with possible solutions.


Now thats what I call disseminating knowledge!

[Nathanael Jones]

I don't doubt that getting hit with half a tonne of water at 70 mph could do damage,... but a lot less damage than a solid tank and cage. Perhaps cages could be designed that would have that effect on the standard tanks we already use?
Also, along the idea of crumple zones in cars,... could tank fixings be designed to move (not too much) in the event of an impact, lessening the forces involved?

[Alex Gardiner]

Good amount of interesting information in these posts. (Tony Oliver we do like you van and kit, by the way and I like the song!).

I have always felt that a flat tank that covers most of the floor area of a van is going to be inherently safer than an upright lump in the middle.

Such as below:


I am anticipating a new vehicle for my work, come the new year. My intention will be to have a tank that is about 800 litres. Dimensions wise it will be about W 1100mm x L 1800mm x H 400mm. This will balance the vehicle well and have a very low centre of gravity-all things that will make the vehicle safer before and during a crash. The trouble with this layout for a retailer of systems is that it is then very difficult to package it as an 'off the shelf' system to sell as you then need either a home based processing unit (what I have) or a separate unit that will need fixing separately into the vehicle.

My personal choice in tanks has always been custom made tanks with box section baffling as this also increase vehicle stability and safety. I have often considered the possibility of rupturing tanks as this is a very efficient way of dissipating energy quickly. They use large water tanks on the sharp point of highway slip roads on the continent and in the US, to absorb the energy of cars safely. To work reliably you would need a system that would 'rip' panels off to allow the water out in a controlled manner. This would quite complex due to the baffled nature of the tanks I use. (my brain is now working in this one, I might try some ideas out in my new vehicle.) A column of 1000 litres of water at 50mph could be just as damaging to a person as a solid tank.

We currently do not sell fitted systems and we will not do so until we are completely happy with the safety issues surrounding them. We have initiated contact with Thatcham to discuss crash test programs, but there is a lot more to this issue than strong clamps. I have come up with a new design of fixing that does away with some of the inherent problems of most clamps, but bearing in mind many of the above issues this is not really dealing with the whole issue.

There are other solutions to these issues. We could switch to the US way of carrying out work. They tend to use on the job systems that process as you work rather than having a storage tank. This could be combined with a  small 100 litre storage tank to act as a buffer for domestic work.

Just my thoughts. Anyone got any ideas for my new tank construction then please feel free to email me on alex@agardiner.co.uk .

[Alex Gardiner]

I think that from a safety point of view they would work very well. One problem they do have is storing longer poles, also they often do not have that large a load area or payload compared to some of the vans.

[steve bell]

Hi guys, I'm new here and have read through all of the above with great interest
I will admit to having a pole fed system, however just using 25litre drums and a trolley system in the back of my Discovery. (plenty of issues there I'm sure, fuel,etc) I cannot afford to get rid of the thing so I'm pressing it into work is the bottom line.
I will be looking at vans and the very problem discussed above in the future. From a background as a HGV mechanic I find it all very interesting why the tanks cannot be mounted underneath a vehicle, thus keeping it away from the ocupants. Admit it would throw up other issues with vehicle servicing, chance of road debris puncturing the vessel..... And of course today with vehicle manufacturers making low load bed vans space isn't available in a van. So what about a pick up? Traditional stuff would fit into a small top box on the bed. Perhaps a purpose built body for a pick up where the vessel would locate to the body mounts where the flat bed should sit?

I dunno if I'm helping here. And I am a newbie, so please be gentle with me.

P.S. I do like the van from the original poster.