[ftp]

Or a bulkhead? The lids nothing compared to a hosereel or a water fed spear or perish the thought - a Vikan sill brush!

[jonisondell]

ok it the tank didnt go through the windscreen this time tested at 31..34 mph pretty pointless test,  as vans go faster than 30mph that dont you think??
what does it look like worst case say 70mph?? does it stay bolted to the floor??

[matt]

Going by all the "errors" that ionics print, such as longest and lightest pole in the world and other statements, I would have greater trust in a system installed by Glyn than one installed by Ionics, even if Glyn knew it was for me..... !!!! 

Regards
Mr H

that made me laugh mr H, fair play, though the system would be installed ok, i would check under the seat of ticking things

[matt]

Sorry guys, we should have made it clear that the crash test was carried out at 31-34mph (as recommend by the European Frontal Crash Directive 96/79/EC). We've slowed it down so that you can see what's happening

We took MIRA's advice on the testing (internationally-acclaimed Ministry of Defence testing site). They're famous for testing Formula 1 cars, so of course they were the obvious choice when it came to testing... a Transit Van full of Pure Water! Reverse Acceleration is the recognised simulation for a head-on collision. The static van, mounted on rails, is hit by a ram and forced backwards... admittedly it looks misleading and a little undramatic, but then we're not making a Schwarzenneger movie, here! It's a scientific experiment, with your safety in mind. We had to be guided by MIRA. Head-on into a wall may look more impressive, but that is allowing the crumple-zone of the van to absorb half the energy. "Reverse Acceleration" is a direct test of the absolute integrity of the van and its mount - taking the full brunt of the impact!

Very impressive. Well done Brodex. My only concern is the flying tank lid which could easily decapitate someone.

Don't worry, Alex, the lid flying off isn't going to decapitate you. It weighs 850 grammes! It might give you a nasty bruise or a headache, but then you've just met 17-year-old Dwayne, head-on, in his lowered Saxo GTi, on the wrong side of the road!... so you've probably already got one of those! And that, with the unexpected shower, is surely better than getting hit in the small of the back by a half-tonne tank!

Cheers,
Daniel

couldnt you have added a explosion at the end ?  ?? ? you know it makes sense

[drwindows]

May sound like an obvious question, but why did you only test a 650L tank and not 1,000L?

[Alex Gardiner]

ok it the tank didnt go through the windscreen this time tested at 31..34 mph pretty pointless test,  as vans go faster than 30mph that dont you think??
what does it look like worst case say 70mph?? does it stay bolted to the floor??

The reason for these tests at these speeds is probably down to the technology available for testing. It is one thing having a crash sled that can test at up to 34mph, but there probably isn't a machine built that could do the same test at 70mph. The firms can only use what equipment is available at the test centres.

[Mr H]

You are more likely to be travelling at less than 35mph than 70mph. Most guys will be doing residential properties and so most of their time driving will be either trying to get up to 35 or breaking to take the next turning.
Admittedly a 70mph crash test would give you more confidence in the system but a few other things would need to be taken in to consideration in a real crash.

1. Inertia. Your more likely to hit a car than another van and as you have the added weight of a tank of water in the back then your vehicle will have more forward force than a car or half loaded van of the same size and so more forward force means you would take longer to slow down than the vehicle comeing the other way. If you hit the back of another vehicle then you are more likely to push that vehicle forward and so again longer to come to a stop.

2. Crumple zones.... The test doesn't take in to account these safety features either, which once again help to reduce how quickly you actually stop and disipate energy away from what is inside a vehicle including you.... Many deaths in vehicles are not from external injuries but from internal injuries caused by the vehicle stopping to quickly and your insides carrying on forward and hemmoraging.... (sorry if your eatting).... see top gear crash test of Smart cars..

3. Not many people will carrry 1000kg tanks and I'm sure the Brodex 1000L tank would have extra fittings and so the fittings to bolt ratio would actually be less than the 650 tank.

So to me it looks like Brodex have gone and crash tested for the most likely crash.

I will admit a 70mph 1000L full system, with poles, reels, etc, crash test would be good for even more confidence but if your mainly local and use a full 650 or less tank then that test should make you feel safer.....

Regards
Mr H

[gerard mcmanus]

Do you think you are going to walk away from a head on collision at 70 MPH in a van without a tank?

[Darren O]

There was one on the tv last week it was about driving in fog on the motorway they had 9 parked cars in 3 lines of 3 then had a remote car doing either 60 or 70 mph smash into the midle car of the back row the 2 cars involved were smashed to bits everyone in the 2 cars would of died instantly there was also  damage to the cars on either side and the cars in front to.

[jonisondell]

Do you think you are going to walk away from a head on collision at 70 MPH in a van without a tank?

yes im sure it is possible, you cant say everybody dies in an accident at 70? and you stand more of a chance without 600/1000 kg lump flying through your van.
im sure there is the technology to crash test @70 its easer to pass a 30mph rather than 70mph.

[jonisondell]

also they say it was tested @ 31..34 was it??
was it 5 10 15 who knows?
there was a time code on the film  but no speed indication, why not put it on there??
im sure it was left out
there could be lots of scientific data on that film, all there is frame number.
you are taking brodex word its 30 i would like to think it is.
i think tank design shoud be radically changed more thought for safety in mind.

[Moderator David@stives]

If they werent telling the truth , beleive me Ionics would be all over them like a rash.

[A.J]

Isn't the sled supposed to stop on impact

[Ian_Giles]

50mph is the last time they would have looked at the speedo, after that they would break, even if they would have have mere seconds till impact, if you slam on the brakes, depending on the situation, it would be more like 35-40 at the very best. Try slamming your brakes at 50, you'd be surprised how quickly you get to 30.

Don't forget, it isn't just the speed that you are travelling at! You have to take into account the speed of the other vehicle!
It's the combined speed that you should look at, if both vehicles are only travelling at 25mph on impact then is is still a 50mph crash, you might just as well have driven into a wall at 50mph!

Ian