[denzle]

Baffles are plates inside the tank to prevent the water sloshing around inside. Imagine a half full tank of water under heavy breaking or in an accident.... 1000lts of water inside a tank joining me in the front seat does not sound like fun.
Denzle

[sham33]

ok thx, guess they would be worth adding then  

[Reuben_Reynolds]

This will be the best advice you see on this forum
If you purchase a tank that is not crash tested due to financial reasons or preference, please fit into a trailer not a van as you could potentionally pay the highest price in a road traffic accident you could lose your life.
There is going to be sombody hurt or killed by a water tank breaking loose have a look at our crash test footage on ionicsystems.com click on safety and play comparitive test dont let it be you!!!!

regards

Reuben

[Pure_2o]

Want a crash tested tank and chassis and on a budget contact carl.stacey@pure2o.co.uk

[Pdh]

all this crash testing thing people have been carrying loads in vans for many a year if water  is to be crash tested,how come companys who load bricks onto transits etc are not crash testing their carrying systems{pallets}

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Dirkstar,

When a pallet of bricks is loaded onto a van it is the drivers responsibility to ensure that it is secured properly. If the load became detached and killed someone the driver could end up with a 10yr prison sentence.

When you go to an installer of vehicle mounted equipment, it is still primarily the drivers responsibility to ensure that the load is secured properly. If you come to our company we can provide independent proof and Thatcham certification to demonstrate that what we have fitted allows you to comply with the Road Traffic Act. Of course you would expect a professional company to be able to provide evidence of testing, after all they make a living from selling equipment and they have legal if not moral responsibility toward their customers.

Sean,

I thought that you could'nt discuss crash testing! Actually there is no reason why you cannot discuss the issue but it would be better if you did so with the benefit of knowledge. Back in April at the 2003 NFMWGC trade show Craig Mawlam agreed with Brian Dolby to make a full presentation to the Fed committee and all other manufacturers to explain about the Thatcham Crash Testing in detail. To date no such meeting has taken place because certain manufacturers did not wish to attend. Our willingness to share information comes from a desire to protect the window cleaner, the hope being that other suppliers would take the issue seriously enough to undertake testing to obtain certification for their own equipment. We can only speculate that the reason that others have not undetaken testing is because they place profit before safety.

It is wrong for you to claim that your fixings are FMVSS-208 complient because you have no certificate to prove this. Nor can you claim that a bulkhead will protect against an impact equal to 52,000 kg force because you can not prove it,

Every year 3-5 window cleaners loose their lives due to falls from ladders. If a water tank let go in a 3.5T van 3 window cleaners could loose their lives in one go. Due to the proliferation of this method of working we forecast that it will not be long before the number of window cleaners killed by water tanks becomes equal to the number loosing life by ladder, the very thing that waterfed poles were designed to overcome!

We have chosened a path that ensures safety for our customers, a path that provides documented evidence to those who may require it.

Window cleaners,
Consider how much life cover you think that your loved ones will need in the event of your death, now compare that to the money that you may save by buying untested equipment. Are you really saying that your lives are worth so little?

regards
Reuben

[APS_PureWash_Sys]

Reuben
What size bolts do you use to secure your systems?
What size reinforcement plates do you use?

I await your reply

andy

[stevekennedy]

Hi Dom,

One death is one too many. Whether you agree or not, the majority of window cleaners are very concerned with surviving a crash. Aslo as an employer, I am concerned with the safety of my staff. One uninsured claim for negligence would bankrupt me.

Instead of trying to be-little Rueban and his company, (or any other WFP system supplier), why not try being CONSTRUCTIVE. Perhaps letting the public know about what safety initiatives your company are pursuing.

This will give the readers of this forum something to respect and show that you care for THEM and not just about sales promotion and limiting damage to your company's profile.

Whether you like it or not, safety is the no 1 issue with professional window cleaners. Anything you can do to convince people of the safety of your system, even if that means some kind of pratical demonstration will benefit you and your company.

Perhaps we window cleaners shoudn't be influenced by the videos on Ionics website, but we WILL. And don't you know it DOM. Regrettably, I think BRODEX will also have to crash test to restore public faith in their products. It would be expensive but WORTH IT!

But, coming on here and continually trying to minimise, belittle and devalue what Ionic have done will only convince people that they've got you on the run.

Your systems seem well priced, they look durable and I'm sure they do a great job. I'm sure also that you have looked at the safety and have made any necessary adjustments to your installation procedures.

I'm sure that, focusing your time and energy on promoting these positive aspects, will do more endear people to you and your company which, I'm sure is your ultimate objective.

SteveK

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Sean,

The agreement was made with Bryan Dolby (Federation Chairman) to make a full presentation. Bryan told us that having been invited to attend a presentation at Sumerfield House that companies such as yours had declined to attend and so the meeting has not yet taken place. If you say that you where not invited then that would be a matter for Bryan Dolby to comment on.

Concerning evidence, we have very clear evidence regarding the whole transaction. The competitor (who we shall not name) did as we can prove install the tank into the van as tested. If the competitor in question had been wronged then one would expect them to make a legal challenge. To date this has not been the case, and therefore this would rightly lead anyone to believe that this was because they did not have a leg to stand on.

Companies cannot claim to meet any aspect of the FMVSS standard unless they hold a certificate to prove it. Our certificates are available for anyone to see, and use to obtain comprehensive insurance cover. What we can not understand is why the competitor in question has not yet undertaken crash testing for the benefit of its customers. Perhaps you can comment on that.

regards

Reuben

[stevekennedy]

Flawed testing is better than no testing DOM. That is the way most potential clients will view things.

Most of the time, my system will be filled 70% or less anyway.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you feel agrieved, why not carry out your own testing and show them all up? Or, if you feel you have a case for misrepresentation, take them to court.

But, you can say all you like on here, and it won't get you anywhere.

Fact is Ionics testing could well be flawed. But my business clients, mainly oil related firms, are crazy about safety. They will LOVE the crash testing. They don't want our drivers to be injured in their carparks or access roads so my chances of getting the contract are greatly enhanced. If your system had been tested in this way they would love your system too. That's how shallow the whole thing is. But the customer is always right. Understand that, and you understand what sales is all about. Perception is everything DOM.

Sadly for you, these customers don't read this forum. They do like to see bits of paper though. You need to get some bits of paper for yourself DOM. Then more people will buy systems from you and YOUR business will be enhanced.

I'm sure you will appreciate hearing how these things are perceived in industry.

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Sean,

"BRODEX believe our money is best spent in developing auixillary restraint systems as fitted as standard on machines we supply to National companies, which comply with and then exceed FMVSS standards".

How can you say that your system complies with or exceeds FMVSS standards when you have not tested it against the standard. Further how can you demonstrate that your restraint system is anchored any better than the tank, in fact if the tank was anchorged properly then it wouldn't need a restraint system or bulkhead. In fact what you are saying is that you have no confidence in how your tank is secured so you have to fit a restraint system because you expect the tank mountings to fail in a crash.

"I now request a copy of all the test data as audited by Thatcham; except their isnt any, because it was never done".

Sean, if you wish to learn more about the data then inform Bryan Dolby that you are now ready to attend the meeting agreed in April last year. No matter what you say we have a Crash Test Certificate issued by THATCHAM, and I do not believe that any reader will accept your word over theirs.

All that any supplier needs to do is submit their equipment for testing in order to substantiate their claims. There is nothing holding you back.

Regards

Reuben

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Sean,

Thatcham undertook six tests for our company, none were flawed, all were real. We went to Thatcham because of their reputation, a reputation that is acknowledged worldwide. If you want to know more ask Bryan Dolby to arrange the meeting.

Regards

Reuben

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Sean,

We have considered your proposal and confirm that we agree in principle. Other than Thatcham, there are three independent bodies qualified to carry out such an investigation, the first being TRL, who are government sponsored. In the event that you choose any of the last three they would probably use the services of one of the first three. We shall agree to submit the Thatcham data and other evidence directly to one of the following agencies upon their request;

1)      Transport Research Laboratories – TRL
2)      Millbrook
3)      MIRA
4)      Trading Standards
5)      Vehicle Standards & Engineering – VSE DofT
6)      National Engineering Laboratory

Our agreement in this matter is subject to your consent to publish the final report in C&M, CHT, Cleaning Matters, Window Talk, Cleanitup, and on your website. Further we require your written confirmation of your consent for this course of action and to publication of the results. Following this we await instructions from one of the above.

Regards

Reuben

[stevekennedy]

Hi Dom,

Your relatives must know a bit about business to get where they have in the oil industry. But with respect, they don't seem to know a thing about getting window cleaning contracts.

People in the oil DO like to see paperwork. They are genuinely impressed when you can produce documents to back up what you are saying. Thatcham are a recognised body. They conduct testing under strict regulations. They also tested a competitor's system. THEY were satisfied that the test was a fair comparison. Most people will trust Thatcham. Most of my customers will be glad that I use the system that is perceived to be SAFER.

The competitors system failed the test under Thatcham's criteria. This does not prove categorically that Ionic's system is safe. It does prove that it is SAFER. Safer than the competitor's system.

This is how it will be interpreted by others, regardless of what you perceive to be the facts.

Anyway, all you are doing by keeping this going Dom is drawing people's attention to the issue. Most people including myself didn't give it a high priority until you started making such a fuss. The more people hear about it, the more they will look at the video, the more they will see that shiny box crash through the cab. It does not look good. People will believe what they see.

I hope you manage to get the data tested however, as I would love to have additional confirmation.

This is all great publicity for Ionic. Reuban Reynolds must be a laughing up his sleeve!

One day the majority of window cleaners will be using WFP systems. There are thousands of them out there. If you want a bigger slice of that, you will have to crash test... ...and so will everyone else.

I'm not looking for a fight dom. I'm just informing you of how all this appears to the guy in the street. You seem to take your business seriously. If you know the value of information, you will think about what I have said and take it on-board. If you dismiss these views it will be at your own expense.

Catch up with you on another topic  

SteveK

[shinnyshinner]

Hi
I have been popping back to this debate every 15min, I and not surprised there is no agreement to these terms Reuben.
Until now I was starting to take Dom Seriously for a change.
Will be very interesting to see the reply, if any???

Alan

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Sean,

The only condition was that you consent to the report being published, in your words publish or be damned.

So, you name the "independent" body and so long as they are qualified we will submit the data directly to them. Basically there are only three other than Thatcham so you pick, TRL, MIRA or Millbrook.

How about Trading Standards?

regards

Reuben

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Sean,

First you have to prove that lies have in fact been told, and you now have an opportunity for this. But when the truth does come out we'd like to see it published.

In the meantime you are asking people to take your word above that of Thatcham's.

regards

Reuben

[Reuben_Reynolds]

Sean,

Nothing to loose, its win win form our perspective. You called our bluff and now you have to pay an "independent public body" to see our hand.

regards

Reuben

[stevekennedy]

To quote someone else wiser than us: "Where there is no wood, the fire goes out"  

[jonesy5]

sean,
At the end of the day ionic have spent a lot of money on crash testing, even if the tank was only 70% full then we all know if we fill our tanks more than 70% we are taking more of a risk.
But how can we accept a system without crash testing, we wouldnt buy a car if the company hadnt made safety paramount, so it is advisable to but a crash tested system.  This form of window cleaning is the future invest now Dom and maybe become the BMW of wash systems.
If you want the Rolls Royce version go to ionic.