[Splash and dash]

. Great news for the top four , even the used systems they sell will sky rocket in price just because it's crash test

“Top four”?
1-Ionic Systems
2-Pure2o (also Ionic)
3-Grippatank (used to be crash simulated, not tested, don’t know if it still is)

And who else?

Pure freedom I think . Grippatank’s is crash tested

[Scottish Cleaning Service]

I wonder if I buy a new van, would I need Oliver to swap the system over? I reckon I would need the paper work if I had an accident and I swapped it over myself, interesting.

[KS Cleaning]

I wonder if I buy a new van, would I need Oliver to swap the system over? I reckon I would need the paper work if I had an accident and I swapped it over myself, interesting.

Just ask Oliver, he’s your buddy after all isn’t he?

[Pete Thompson]

Pure freedom I think . Grippatank’s is crash tested

I remember seeing a crash test (by which I mean a van with a Pure Freedom system crashing into a concrete block)  by Pure Freedom on YouTube many years ago, but they never mentioned it on their website and the video cut off half way through, and there was no other information about it.

I thought Pure Freedom didn’t exist anymore having been absorbed into Window Cleaning Warehouse, though I do see they are claiming “crash tested” on the systems. Still no video or certification though. Personally I don’t think I would trust that without seeing the certification from whatever lab they are claiming their crash test was done.

And Grippatank systems are not “crash tested” they are “crash simulated” which is a significant difference.

A crash test is where you “crash” the vehicle. It is literally driven remotely at speed and “crashed” into a solid object to see how it performs. This was done by Ionic (of which you can see a plethora of videos) and Pure Freedom, (though I can’t find that video anywhere, but I definitely remember seeing it.)

Grippatank performed a Sled Test on their system, where the system is stationary on a movable ‘sled’ and a piston impacts the sled at a known speed.

This has the effect of SIMULATING a crash. But it is NOT a crash, since the vehicle has not been crashed. This is a a ‘crash simulation’.

(Interestingly, Ionic did several of these ‘crash simulations’ using sled tests before they performed the full crash-test as a way to develop their system).

These simulations are worthwhile, certainly better than nothing, but there’s a good reason that only actual crash TESTS are acceptable for standards such as Euro NCAP, because you only know how something is going to perform in a crash by actually crashing it, not just simulating it.

This distinction might become important if insurers decide only to cover “crash TESTED” systems.

[Pete Thompson]

I just saw the insurance thread (that spawned this one) and it looks like Alexander Swan are treating ionic (and pure2o), brodex, Grippatank, pure freedom, streamline and the cleaning warehouse (whoever they are) as all crash tested.

That is interesting.

And as for Alexander Swan “losing out”, they are only losing out on customers they don’t want, so I don’t think they’re bothered.

For me, if this action will prevent me having to pay more in insurance to cover those who are being dangerous, it’s all good.

It didn’t take me long to decide on Ionics, not only because it was clearly the best, but because it was so obviously safer.

[tlwcs]

I just saw the insurance thread (that spawned this one) and it looks like Alexander Swan are treating ionic (and pure2o), brodex, Grippatank, pure freedom, streamline and the cleaning warehouse (whoever they are) as all crash tested.

That is interesting.

And as for Alexander Swan “losing out”, they are only losing out on customers they don’t want, so I don’t think they’re bothered.

For me, if this action will prevent me having to pay more in insurance to cover those who are being dangerous, it’s all good.

It didn’t take me long to decide on Ionics, not only because it was clearly the best, but because it was so obviously safer.

Who are the customers they don’t want?
As a broker they get a commission from each sale and have admin to do on every policy they have placed, whether it’s claimed upon or not. (More admin if there is a claim)
The fact it is a DIY fitted system does not mean it’s business they don’t want, it’s the underwriters that don’t want anything other that what they to perceive as crash tested systems

[Splash and dash]

Pure freedom I think . Grippatank’s is crash tested

I remember seeing a crash test (by which I mean a van with a Pure Freedom system crashing into a concrete block)  by Pure Freedom on YouTube many years ago, but they never mentioned it on their website and the video cut off half way through, and there was no other information about it.

I thought Pure Freedom didn’t exist anymore having been absorbed into Window Cleaning Warehouse, though I do see they are claiming “crash tested” on the systems. Still no video or certification though. Personally I don’t think I would trust that without seeing the certification from whatever lab they are claiming their crash test was done.

And Grippatank systems are not “crash tested” they are “crash simulated” which is a significant difference.

A crash test is where you “crash” the vehicle. It is literally driven remotely at speed and “crashed” into a solid object to see how it performs. This was done by Ionic (of which you can see a plethora of videos) and Pure Freedom, (though I can’t find that video anywhere, but I definitely remember seeing it.)

Grippatank performed a Sled Test on their system, where the system is stationary on a movable ‘sled’ and a piston impacts the sled at a known speed.

This has the effect of SIMULATING a crash. But it is NOT a crash, since the vehicle has not been crashed. This is a a ‘crash simulation’.

(Interestingly, Ionic did several of these ‘crash simulations’ using sled tests before they performed the full crash-test as a way to develop their system).

These simulations are worthwhile, certainly better than nothing, but there’s a good reason that only actual crash TESTS are acceptable for standards such as Euro NCAP, because you only know how something is going to perform in a crash by actually crashing it, not just simulating it.

This distinction might become important if insurers decide only to cover “crash TESTED” systems.

I certainly don’t want to be recommending them in any way but there website clearly states it’s crash tested see below , are you saying this is false advertising ?

[Pete Thompson]

as for Alexander Swan “losing out”, they are only losing out on customers they don’t want, so I don’t think they’re bothered.

For me, if this action will prevent me having to pay more in insurance to cover those who are being dangerous, it’s all good.

It didn’t take me long to decide on Ionics, not only because it was clearly the best, but because it was so obviously safer.

Who are the customers they don’t want?
As a broker they get a commission from each sale and have admin to do on every policy they have placed, whether it’s claimed upon or not. (More admin if there is a claim)
The fact it is a DIY fitted system does not mean it’s business they don’t want, it’s the underwriters that don’t want anything other that what they to perceive as crash tested systems

That's true, but the underwriters decide what rates the broker will pay based on the portfolio of customers they bring to them.

It could be that the underwriters have simply said "No untested systems" in which case brokers like Alexander Swan have no choice.

Or it may be that covering non-tested systems bumps up the price they pay to such a degree that AS are better off without it.  Maybe they can make the same money (or more money) charging crash-tested systems owners only than having the risky non-tested system dragging up rates for their whole portfolio.

[Pete Thompson]

I certainly don’t want to be recommending them in any way but there website clearly states it’s crash tested see below , are you saying this is false advertising ?

No, I'm not saying that, because I don't personally know what testing they have and have not done.  For all I know, they may have done an actual "Crash" test with the vehicle crashing into a barrier, but have (for some reason) not publicised it.

I also do not know what the legal definition of 'false advertising' is, or how anyone would prove it.  I do though, think, a competitor could possibly challenge the claim.

[Splash and dash]

I certainly don’t want to be recommending them in any way but there website clearly states it’s crash tested see below , are you saying this is false advertising ?

No, I'm not saying that, because I don't personally know what testing they have and have not done.  For all I know, they may have done an actual "Crash" test with the vehicle crashing into a barrier, but have (for some reason) not publicised it.

I also do not know what the legal definition of 'false advertising' is, or how anyone would prove it.  I do though, think, a competitor could possibly challenge the claim.

This might be useful again from their website