[֍Winp®oClean֍]

Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.

If you read the crash investigation report and coroners report you will find that they state the straps  are not suitable for securing a water tank inside a van .

My friend and fellow windie crashed his van at over 30mph. His strapped in tank didn't move at all! It was still in situ when the loss adjuster visited too and was never mentioned in the claim. Straps could be made to be far more secure than a steel cage if  you were drill the floor and utilise modified lashing points!

The report seems to state that those particular straps were inappropriate in that situation and not generally? Indicated that they were only securing the base of the tank. Also appears like the there was no protection from the 'makeshift' bulk head being 'ply wood'.
Basically sounds like a proper bodge job!

[AuRavelling79]

Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.

Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone  using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.

I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.

 

[Splash and dash]

Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.

Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone  using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.

I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.

 

The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem

[Perfect Windows]

The core problem is that people extrapolate what happens under heavy braking at, say, 0.6g (IBC even unstrapped against a bulkhead doesn't move an inch) and assume similar things will be happening at 30g in an accident.

The challenge there is that if the load bulkhead fails the next real impediment to the movement of the tank is the bulkhead between the cab and the engine, by which time your goose is cooked.

I also agree that people seem only to compare crash-tested with insanely unsafe options when there's actually a range of options.

Vin

[AuRavelling79]

Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.

Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone  using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.

I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.

 

The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem

And yet ...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.

Absolutist statement Splash.

It depends.

[AuRavelling79]

https://www.titanloadrestraints.co.uk/5000kg-x-10m-ratchet-strap-claw-hook-sale#:~:text=5%20Tonne%20Ratchet%20Strap%20with%20Claw%20Hooks%20%2D%2010%20Metres,-Designed%20for%20strength&text=With%20a%2010metre%20length%20and,and%202%2C500kg%20lashing%20capacity.

A pair of these triple wound through my 650L Wydale holes didn't let my 650L tank move when I hit a car side on at about 20mph.

The tank didn't even compress the plywood between it and the bulkhead and it was full to the brim.

[֍Winp®oClean֍]

Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.

[Splash and dash]

Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.

Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone  using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.

I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.

 

The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem

And yet ...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.

Absolutist statement Splash.

It depends.

A van is totally different to an HGV  and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects  thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads

[Splash and dash]

Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.

Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead

[֍Winp®oClean֍]

Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.

Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone  using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.

I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.

 

The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem

And yet ...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.

Absolutist statement Splash.

It depends.

A van is totally different to an HGV  and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects  thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads

From the same article-

"If you’re carrying a load in a van, you should:

*use straps secured to the vehicle body or pack any gaps between the load and the vehicle body
*load to the bulkhead between the cargo space and the cab"

[Soupy]

Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.

Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead

That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov

Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?

[NBwcs]

A bit more govenment advise specificaaly relating to an ibc.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/6-how-to-carry-different-types-of-load-in-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles#:~:text=You%20must%20secure%20intermediate%20bulk,the%20top%20of%20the%20IBC

A bit further down it gives advise about "tanks" but its fairly vague.

I cant find anything relevant about Thatcham either, would be good if you could find something  to upload Splash.

[AuRavelling79]

Obviously, by the sounds of it, the tank was unsuitable for the job and wasn't secured as good as it should have been. Then there's the manner of the driving.
There's nothing wrong with straps at all if they're implemented properly. What do you think secures every Human body in a vehicle? They're often preferable to chains, ever heard the term 'weakest link'? Anything is only as strong as it's weakest part. Crash tested systems are only rated to 30mph so most of the time you would be exceeding it's safe parameters. Common sense and good practice needs to be implemented in all scenarios when carrying a load.

Exactly. A Muppet using a 1000L IBC with luggage straps is different from someone  using a 650L baffled tank with a pair of 5 tonne ratchet straps through a bolted and plated frame up against a factory bulkhead.

I just see either/or extremes between crash-tested and strapped with bungees to a pallet posted on here.

 

The whole point is the tank should not be against the bulkhead that’s half the problem

And yet ...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20the%20vehicle%20has%20a,forward%20when%20the%20vehicle%20brakes.

Absolutist statement Splash.

It depends.

A van is totally different to an HGV  and carrying liquids comes under a different category to solid objects  thatcham who do the crash testing state tanks should not be against bulkheads

You need to read more carefully. From the same article. As Winpro points out.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/securing-loads-on-hgvs-and-goods-vehicles/4-ways-to-secure-a-load-in-an-hgv-or-goods-vehicle#:~:text=If%20you%E2%80%99re%20carrying,and%20the%20cab

Thatcham want to make sure that the tank fitted system isn't relying AT ALL on the bulkhead when testing. Because it may be fitted to a van with no load bulkhead.

Like I said - too much absolutist stuff from people on here.

[AuRavelling79]

Also it is perfectly legal - although I wouldn't personally rely on it - for a 1000L IBC full of (say) juice to be put in the back of a suitably rated van and lashed to its loading points with suitable straps. (Up against the bulkhead if this doesn't cause axle weight issues)

To me vehicle loading and securing  it is all about ameliorating risk within the law.

 

[Splash and dash]

Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.

Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead

That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov

Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?

I had a load of paperwork from thatcham when I bought my first fitted tank from Ionic’s and it clearly stated that a water tank was different to a static load and should never be placed against a bulk head in a van they then showed the picture of the video in there blurb of the water tank rupturing , this video is still a available to see on YouTube it’s the video of the testing of Ionic’s tanks in a crash

[Rob.Hall]

That tank is not fully baffled so weight would have easy been transferred.

Why have 1 ton anchor points in a van.
Surely a fully baffled tank in a stainless steel cage with the correct straps would be adequate for the job.

I remember when Ionics started fitted tanks.
They pushed them like crazy trying to scare the likes of us diy wfp guys that there systems were the only legal option
That was years ago.

Any vehicle with a load traveling at speed is a liability.

I feel the wfp companies are pushing the insurance companies to get strapped down tanks made illegal so they can profit from it.

A big eoe.
Await incoming   

[Bungle]

Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.

Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead

That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov

Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?

I had a load of paperwork from thatcham when I bought my first fitted tank from Ionic’s and it clearly stated that a water tank was different to a static load and should never be placed against a bulk head in a van they then showed the picture of the video in there blurb of the water tank rupturing , this video is still a available to see on YouTube it’s the video of the testing of Ionic’s tanks in a crash

The pic says 12mph. Would a van crumple at a 12mph head on crash? I doubt it very much. Would having doors on vehicle help stop said vehicle crumpling so much? I think it would.

[Splash and dash]

That tank is not fully baffled so weight would have easy been transferred.

Why have 1 ton anchor points in a van.
Surely a fully baffled tank in a stainless steel cage with the correct straps would be adequate for the job.

I remember when Ionics started fitted tanks.
They pushed them like crazy trying to scare the likes of us diy wfp guys that there systems were the only legal option
That was years ago.

Any vehicle with a load traveling at speed is a liability.

I feel the wfp companies are pushing the insurance companies to get strapped down tanks made illegal so they can profit from it.

A big eoe.
Await incoming   

Those ibc tanks were fully baffled with 4 inch drain pipe and it worked very well no surge at all I had one years ago , the latest black welded tanks are also fully baffled but you get much more surge as the baffles are now square welded in sections . The problem with using ratchet straps is the mounting eyes in the van aren’t rated enough to hold a liquid in place in an accident , the strap might be ok but the mounting point isn’t . It’s the insurance companies that are pushing to ban diy systems as all the serious accidents or deaths have happened with diy systems not the professional fitted ones it’s just a numbers game as far as they are concerned as they are making big payouts when this happens, obviously the number of deaths with WFP vans is very small compared to all the  RTA S that happens but each death costs the insurance companies around 1 million a go , that figure is several years old so probably more now .

[Splash and dash]

Yep, the load should be placed up to the bulkhead. This aids the prevention of any momentum/movement of the load and adds to the combined restraint strength. Mine is placed there, and always has been exactly for this reason.

Not with liquids thatcham state there should be a gap between the tank and bulkhead I believe it says for a 30 degree deformation of the tank so it can ruptured so the weight isn’t transferred through the bulkhead

That's interesting. That's not what I've always been led to believe. Hard-to the bulkhead to limit momentum in the event of rapid deceleration. As stated on .gov

Do you have documentation from thatcham? I had a quick search and didn't find anything?

I had a load of paperwork from thatcham when I bought my first fitted tank from Ionic’s and it clearly stated that a water tank was different to a static load and should never be placed against a bulk head in a van they then showed the picture of the video in there blurb of the water tank rupturing , this video is still a available to see on YouTube it’s the video of the testing of Ionic’s tanks in a crash

The pic says 12mph. Would a van crumple at a 12mph head on crash? I doubt it very much. Would having doors on vehicle help stop said vehicle crumpling so much? I think it would.

If you watch the video it’s 30 mph , no it wouldn’t crumple up like that at 12 mph

[AuRavelling79]

Anyone heard of any other window cleaner deaths than this Teeside one from a shifting tank?  Which we know was in an erratically driven old van with an insecure full 1000L IBC tank?

In twenty plus years of wfp?

If so what were the circumstances?