Having spent some considerable time going through all the posts that Sean Rimmer and Reuben Reynolds have posted over the past couple of months I'm going to avoid anything that may be viewed as subjective and stick to the facts so that others can make an informed decision.
Sean suggested the title of this thread should have been Ionic v The rest of the industry and that Brodex had been 'singled out for special treatment'. Craig did agree that the whole issue was an industry issue and having read through all the previous posts it is clear that not until Sean admitted it was their machine they tested did Ionic give any indication of who's it was.
Having spent over 5 hours going through the whole crash test information yesterday I'd like to quote just one particular posting Dom Matrix (aka Sean Rimmer) made on Thursday 18th December which was consequently removed from the forum. This single post sums up thier side of the story.
"BRODEX did supply the machine in your crash test video, but never installed it. As you well know, the private investigator you sent to our company bought the machine in the hope that we would install it to the rustbucket transit, which as you correctly note was not upto carrying the payload of a HIGHFLOW machine. We checked the vinplate & model number and told your investigator, that we could not install to that van, as it would be overloaded if he filled it with water.! After consulting with Craig Mawlam, he returned next day to say he would take the machine away empty in the lightweight van (for which he could not produce a valid MOT certificate)and get his engineer brother to install. in his own roadworthy van. Your lies are as plain as the nose on your face. "
This is simply not true. I have seen the video taken by thier private detective which clearly records the whole event including negotiating the price, dropping the vehicle off on 23/1/2003 and collecting it fitted to the van on 28/1/2003. Their was no indication that Brodex questioned the payload of the van and it was confirmed when it was collected that it was full of water. We actually weighed the Brodex machine yesterday and it was 881kgs while full of water. I saw the original V5 which confirms that the van had a maximum payload of 800kgs. I saw the original MOT certificate which was still current at the time of fitting. By no stretch of the imagination could the van be classed as unroadworthy or indeed 'a rust bucket'.
"The Thatcham test was bought and paid for by OTT, NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION INDEPENDENT TESTING. If you want an example of independent testing, ask Which magazine. They buy products and test them, photograph them, even film them. They DO NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT from the manufacturers to paint their product in a better way or even misrepresent other competitors products in a decietful manner. To set the record straight, THATCHAM DID NOT CONTROL THE CRASH TEST PROCEDURE, THEY DO NOT HAVE DATA ON THE COMPARATIVE CRASH TEST ON OUR MACHINE, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TEST IT..! THEY MERELY FILMED AN UNINSTALLED HIGHFLOW UNIT FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, HARDLY SURPRISING AS YOU INSTALLED IT THAT WAY, WITHOUT OUR MOUNTING KIT OR CHAIN RESTRAINT SYSTEM INSTALLED AS STANDARD ON ALL HIGHFLOW VANMOUNTS . The chain restraint system that was supossed to be picked up by your detective is still sitting in the workshop...and by the way, the machine you bought is due a service...and since your company have yet to develop any industrial machines to date, I suggest you leave it to the professionals, we'll give you a special price on a full service.!
regards Sean Rimmer"
Again not true. Thatcham have provided an exceptional amount of comparative data on the crash test. When Reuben said that you needed special software to view the data I was sceptical about it. However, the data is so involved that Thatham have had to create a software program to analyse it. It contains hundreds of images from 4 different camera angles on all the tests including both the van tests and the sled tests. The Brodex machine was clearly fitted in the same way as it left them and there are sworn affidavits to confirm that the machine was not altered from the time it left them to the time it got to Thatchams.
The unit does indeed look like wasn't fitted properly because the bolts simply sheared off on impact - you can clearly see one of the bolt heads hitting the dashboard and the bracing bar underneath the van dropping off just after the impact. The floor did not give way, the unit simply failed the test.
cont.......