[Toby Sampson]

Hi Guys,

Just heard about a window cleaner being killed in a car crash after his tank came off the ratchet straps in a crash.

Has made me nervous about my diy fitted system.

I’ve looked into getting a xline delivery system (reasonably priced I thought) and want to check them out at the cleaning show in sept.

Anyone got one? Any good?

If not any other recommendations for a professionally fitted delivery system?

Thanks

[Smudger]

got any more info on this?

Darran

[Toby Sampson]

got any more info on this?

Darran

Not really mate. Just heard that it was a three car pile up and everyone walked away but him.

Been worried about my system for a while though- this has just cemented my fears

[High-Tower]

If I was shopping for a fitted system with safety in mind I would be looking at grippatank, pure freedom or ionics as their systems have been crash tested.

[Toby Sampson]

If I was shopping for a fitted system with safety in mind I would be looking at grippatank, pure freedom or ionics as their systems have been crash tested.

Thanks mate- have xline not been crash tested then?

[The Jester of Wibbly]

Well our death rate was much higher with ladders and without tanks back in the day.

[High-Tower]

If I was shopping for a fitted system with safety in mind I would be looking at grippatank, pure freedom or ionics as their systems have been crash tested.

Thanks mate- have xline not been crash tested then?

They don’t advertise it on the website.
I have recently purchased a grippatank system, and the difference with their tank with proper baffling compared to the standard wydale tanks is night and day!

[Clever Forum Name]

We've got 7 grippatank systems are they're solid as a rock

[Pete Thompson]

I remember reading about this, here is the original newspaper article:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/man-in-his-20s-dies-in-a1067-collision-1-5277880

Personally, I would never ever drive around in a van with a non crash-tested tank, no matter how solid it felt. The forces unleashed when half a ton of water and machine are brought to a dead stop are simply huge. No bulkhead or seat etc is going to save you, as this case has shown.

To my knowledge (I researched this before buying my own system) the only crash-tested systems out there are Ionic and  Pure2o, and (sort of) pure freedom.

Ionic's crash tests: http://www.ionicsystems.com/uk/safety/crash-testing-barriers/

This was why I chose pure2o systems both times, first for my 400 litre system in a VW Caddy, and now with my 700 litre system in my Toyota Proace.

Grippatank say they are ‘crash tested’ but in my humble opinion, that is slightly misleading. Why do I say that?

Because their systems were not installed in a van and crashed. That would be a “crash test”. Instead they tested using a “HyGE Sled”. (As it says in their product descriptions) This is where the system is installed on a “sled” and then that sled is impacted by a piston travelling at a certain speed. This SIMULATES a crash, but it is not a crash.

Their HyGE sled test is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrbvYwVQWZw

I think a better and more honest description would have been “crash simulated” rather than “crash tested”.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that they did anything at all, and it’s certainly better than nothing. But to my mind  it just isn’t a crash test, and there are so many other factors involved that the only way to know how any system will perform in an actual crash is to put it in actual crash, not a simulation.

The only actual crash tests have been done by Ionics, pure2o and pure freedom.

Companies like x-line and a few others have simply ignored the issue, which in my view is totally irresponsible. In fact x-line states that their systems are lighter than others and “ so no need for heavy metal fixing plates or wrap around frames.”

Lol! It’s not the tank that makes a system heavy, it’s the half ton (or more!) of water inside it! Or maybe x-line have found a way to make the water less heavy somehow. Ridiculous!

[Scrimble]

That is awful that someone has been killed by a unsecured water tank,

Xline set ups use an aluminium frame as far as I know to reduce the weight, I have seen one of there frames and they look like they are fit for purpose, the only reason I would not buy one is they still use the wydale tanks

[Oliver @ GrippaTank]

I remember reading about this, here is the original newspaper article:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/man-in-his-20s-dies-in-a1067-collision-1-5277880

Personally, I would never ever drive around in a van with a non crash-tested tank, no matter how solid it felt. The forces unleashed when half a ton of water and machine are brought to a dead stop are simply huge. No bulkhead or seat etc is going to save you, as this case has shown.

To my knowledge (I researched this before buying my own system) the only crash-tested systems out there are Ionic and  Pure2o, and (sort of) pure freedom.

Ionic's crash tests: http://www.ionicsystems.com/uk/safety/crash-testing-barriers/

This was why I chose pure2o systems both times, first for my 400 litre system in a VW Caddy, and now with my 700 litre system in my Toyota Proace.

Grippatank say they are ‘crash tested’ but in my humble opinion, that is slightly misleading. Why do I say that?

Because their systems were not installed in a van and crashed. That would be a “crash test”. Instead they tested using a “HyGE Sled”. (As it says in their product descriptions) This is where the system is installed on a “sled” and then that sled is impacted by a piston travelling at a certain speed. This SIMULATES a crash, but it is not a crash.

Their HyGE sled test is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrbvYwVQWZw

I think a better and more honest description would have been “crash simulated” rather than “crash tested”.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that they did anything at all, and it’s certainly better than nothing. But to my mind  it just isn’t a crash test, and there are so many other factors involved that the only way to know how any system will perform in an actual crash is to put it in actual crash, not a simulation.

The only actual crash tests have been done by Ionics, pure2o and pure freedom.

Companies like x-line and a few others have simply ignored the issue, which in my view is totally irresponsible. In fact x-line states that their systems are lighter than others and “ so no need for heavy metal fixing plates or wrap around frames.”

Lol! It’s not the tank that makes a system heavy, it’s the half ton (or more!) of water inside it! Or maybe x-line have found a way to make the water less heavy somehow. Ridiculous!

Good morning,

For clarification the restraint system used in the GrippaTank system was thoroughly and repeatedly tested by MIRA on a HyGe sled system whilst fitted into a van. This allowed the system to be developed and refined to provide a secure and safe method of transporting water.

We believe that this is a superior crash test simulation for water tank restraints than the method of crashing a van into a concrete block as used by some other testing facilities and WFP system builders - why do we believe that the method chosen for our system testing is superior?

Because this method reverse accelerates the van and fitted system to accurately replicate the maximum force that can be instantly applied to the restraints in a crash. On the other hand when simulating a crash by crashing a van into a concrete block, this does not test just the tank restraints but also includes the impact absorption abilities of the van being used - this, we believe, will lessen the transfer of energy to the restraint by an amount that can vary with each van type used in the simulation. The HyGe sled, however, produces consistent test results and does not allow the impact absorption of the van's crumple zones to get between the force exerted and the tank restraint strength.

Van manufacturers spend millions in development to ensure that the crash absorption of their vehicles absorb as much of an impact as possible - whilst this is good for us as drivers, in a crash test simulation it only gets in the way of a 'pure' testing result of the actual restraint system.

[Pete Thompson]

It’s a fair point you make grippatank, and as I mentioned I’m not knocking what you’ve done in any way, in fact I think you are to be applauded for doing anything at all when there are plenty of suppliers out there simply ignoring the issue.

I do take issue with you calling it “crash tested” since it simply isn’t a “crash test” it’s a “crash simulation”.

Also, when I researched this issue when buying my own systems I found lots and lots of information about crash-testing generally and one thing in particular I found quite persuasive. The NCAP system for rating car safety is based on actual crash testing (not crash simulations). Among the articles I read about why this is the case when it’s so much easier (and cheaper) to do sled tests was the Crash Test Dummies.

The Crash Test Dummies are critical to seeing how safe a thing actually is, because after the crash you can examine and analyse the dummy (and it’s sensors) to see what injuries it would have suffered.

For NCAP, they determined that it would be useless to say a sled test was “successful” just because the vehicle stayed in one piece, or a certain load stayed where it was, because that does not tell you how protected the people inside were.

Your sled test shows that a grippatank system stayed where it was installed, which is great. But what happened to that energy? Was it absorbed? Or did it simply make the crash so much worse in the vans cab, that the driver was killed anyway?

The point is, you just don’t know unless you do a real crash test, and include crash dummies.

This was (in my opinion) the problem with Pure Freedoms crash test. The video is here:
https://youtu.be/SnFyMqPER3g

I came very close to buying a pure freedom system the first time around, but this video (along with a few other things) is what changed my mind. As you’ll see if you watch it, the system stays in place, which is great.

But what happened inside the cab?? They don’t show you. They only show a few selected still images from the side. Why not include the whole film? That would have been the most convincing clip.

To me, answer was obvious. The damage to the cab was catastrophic, the driver would probably have been killed,  and they didn’t want to show it. (And weirdly, no crash dummy?!).

I also noticed that pure freedom themselves don’t refer to their systems as “crash-tested”, which to me, says it all.

But, if they had done a sled test, it would have shown the system staying in place, (just as the grippatank one does). The point I’m making is what does that matter if the cab is also crushed so badly that the driver is killed?

To me this is a perfect example of why a “crash simulation” is not the same as a “crash test”. It’s not just about the thing staying where it is, it’s about walking away afterwards.

Again, not knocking you, you’ve done a good thing with your sled test, and well done to you for it. But it’s a crash simulation, not a crash test.

[AuRavelling79]

I'm reading this on my phone but I don't see anything in that crash report saying why the young man died or about any system that may have been on board.
I'd welcome a link giving more details of the accident.

[Dry Clean]

Its not hard to put a tank into a crash proof metal frame and bolt it to a van floor, its how the floor will hold out and not the system that would have to be tested, put it this way in a 10 year old Transit you would more than likely be hit by the tank and the rusty floor bolted to it.

[Oliver @ GrippaTank]

It’s a fair point you make grippatank, and as I mentioned I’m not knocking what you’ve done in any way, in fact I think you are to be applauded for doing anything at all when there are plenty of suppliers out there simply ignoring the issue.

I do take issue with you calling it “crash tested” since it simply isn’t a “crash test” it’s a “crash simulation”.

Also, when I researched this issue when buying my own systems I found lots and lots of information about crash-testing generally and one thing in particular I found quite persuasive. The NCAP system for rating car safety is based on actual crash testing (not crash simulations). Among the articles I read about why this is the case when it’s so much easier (and cheaper) to do sled tests was the Crash Test Dummies.

The Crash Test Dummies are critical to seeing how safe a thing actually is, because after the crash you can examine and analyse the dummy (and it’s sensors) to see what injuries it would have suffered.

For NCAP, they determined that it would be useless to say a sled test was “successful” just because the vehicle stayed in one piece, or a certain load stayed where it was, because that does not tell you how protected the people inside were.

Your sled test shows that a grippatank system stayed where it was installed, which is great. But what happened to that energy? Was it absorbed? Or did it simply make the crash so much worse in the vans cab, that the driver was killed anyway?

The point is, you just don’t know unless you do a real crash test, and include crash dummies.

This was (in my opinion) the problem with Pure Freedoms crash test. The video is here:
https://youtu.be/SnFyMqPER3g

I came very close to buying a pure freedom system the first time around, but this video (along with a few other things) is what changed my mind. As you’ll see if you watch it, the system stays in place, which is great.

But what happened inside the cab?? They don’t show you. They only show a few selected still images from the side. Why not include the whole film? That would have been the most convincing clip.

To me, answer was obvious. The damage to the cab was catastrophic, the driver would probably have been killed,  and they didn’t want to show it. (And weirdly, no crash dummy?!).

I also noticed that pure freedom themselves don’t refer to their systems as “crash-tested”, which to me, says it all.

But, if they had done a sled test, it would have shown the system staying in place, (just as the grippatank one does). The point I’m making is what does that matter if the cab is also crushed so badly that the driver is killed?

To me this is a perfect example of why a “crash simulation” is not the same as a “crash test”. It’s not just about the thing staying where it is, it’s about walking away afterwards.

Again, not knocking you, you’ve done a good thing with your sled test, and well done to you for it. But it’s a crash simulation, not a crash test.

Hi Pete,

Thank you for your appreciation and commendation.

Our tests had the system bolted to a vehicle, and then the combination of system fitted into a vehicle was catapulted on the sled test. Its key to note that our system then stayed in place and did not penetrate the cab at all (unlike our competitors).

In the real world, the safety of the driver would then be down to whether the front of the cab suffered damage from what the van hit, rather than the system penetrating the cabin area.

[The Jester of Wibbly]

Maybe we should wrap the tank in cotton wool.   

[nathankaye]

Its not hard to put a tank into a crash proof metal frame and bolt it to a van floor, its how the floor will hold out and not the system that would have to be tested, put it this way in a 10 year old Transit you would more than likely be hit by the tank and the rusty floor bolted to it.

Not many times I agree ith Sean or him me, but I agree on this point!
I do feel for the guy and his family if he left one behind, it certainly isn't a way that I would like to go, to be crushed by a tank of water.
However, the article from what I read doesn't make clear how the individual died, nor what tank or straps that the individual had.

A frame may help but again, it also depends upon how the frame is bolted down as it's only as secure as it's weakest parts.
I still use ratchet straps, but around the perimeter of the tank, I have a frame bolted through the floor with steel back plates as well.  Again with the eyelets which I use to attach the ratchet straps too, via a connection (haha no idea what the connections are called) which can hold point 8 tonne.  So one one each side, should hold less than point 5 tonne of water and that's on the rare occasions its full to the brim.  The ratchet straps can hold 5 tonne and so I feel pretty safe.

My work doesn't require motorway driving and not often on national limit roads. Although it is mostly other people's driving that you have to watch out for, but if you are a sensible driver I'm sure you can cut down the risk of ever having an accident. Lol, it seems a handful on here choose to nearly blow their vans up with gas lpg heaters instead of being crushed with a tank 

[P @ F]

I think that the van into a concrete block test is invalid  , totally flawed in fact .
How can the Ionics or Pure Freedom tests be relied upon unless I fitted them to the identical vans used in either test .
Let’s say I buy a system that was tested in a Transit and have it fitted into my Fiorino, it would react totally different in the event of an accident!
In my eyes the only true test you could do would be to have the same model van as you have crashed into a concrete block or buy the same van as the testers have used in a successful test !

[P @ F]

Also as Nathan pointed out earlier, it’s awful that this chap died but there are no details of fixings or what actually happened.
We have all seen it , a 400 upright held in with poundshop buckle straps  , this may well have been how it was !

[Stoots]

You could die from anything at anytime why worry

I use a couple of ratchet straps and drive carefully, most of the time im doing 30 mph or less anyway