PDA

View Full Version : one view on the ROPS system



weeds
9th January 2014, 10:50 AM
In writing this example, the presumption isthat the reader wants to do the job properly, if this isn’t you, read nofurther.

Part A
Roll Over Protection (ROP) can take many forms and has a myriad of problems. The following only addresses a couple of points. A major concern is that countless owners/repairers identify any piece of bent pipe as ROP. An unsafe device or installation can be far more dangerous than no ROP at all!

Very few vehicle manufacturers have factory fitted, or optional ROP. Certain vehicle manufacturers have pipe work that resembles ROP as ameans of providing upper seat belt anchorage points.

As a general statement, a home-made bar or installation is going to fail. Examples of home-made errors can be found in the previous six builds andreadily related to ROP. The purchaser needs to confirm that what they intend to buy is in fact ROP. The ROP manufacturer should be able to supply paperwork that certifies the design’s compliance as ROP (materials, bends, welding,vehicle application and installation requirements...). Where required, this will also encompass seat belt anchorages (ADR number, Design Approval Number...),as some devices provide both aspects. Similar to fuel tanks, the cage will have some formal means of (affixed) identification which can be related directly to the ROP manufacturer.

In other countries, ROP can be typically purchased in kit form, off the shelf, from multiple large ROP manufacturers. Bespoke changes can be special ordered where required. In Australia, the ROP industry tends to be small businesses creating one-offs, with little paper trail or actual design processes. Essentially custom making each and every cage as and when needed. This also tends not to be the primary product of the business. Therefore the emphasis falls towards the purchaser to make sure that all requirements are present. Not just trying to pass the blame when faults are identified later, usually at the point of inspection. ROP installation is a code under the Modification Approval scheme. If the device doesn’t meet the required standards, the installation won’t pass.

Oddly, the Federal C.O.P. states the requirement for the manufacturer to keep and provide documentation for design, construction and installation.

The followingis a REAL situation affecting several hundred vehicles: Australian Army 110 Land-Rover 4x4 (soft top, two front seats, eight inward facing rearseats)


...it’s a little vague what the original design was intended for. In reality JRA and the ADF ignored Land-Rover’s off the shelf ROP for Series III and 110. Instead they came up with their own idea. This deleted the standard front and rear canopy bows(circa 1” diameter) and replaced them with 3” steel pipe. The standard middle bow and side rods remained.

The new front bow now served as the upper seat belt anchorage points. Combined, both new bows mounted a light duty roof rack for the transport of camouflage netting. There appearsto be little or no paperwork to substantiate this design as ROP. Undoubtedly it did provide some improvement, especially in simple fall-over type situations. However in the case of a proper roll-over, little support is present. As a bow or belt anchorage, there is no requirement to pad the piping, nor fit diagonal supports. Similarly, this original design allows for any 4x4 to be stripped to dash level as per previous models. Alternate (shoulder) high seat belt mounts were incorporated in the body to allow for the bar’s removal.

At this point it would clear to the average person that this arrangement was nothing more than a bow/roof rack support/seat belt anchorage and nothing more!

After several deaths, injuries and a Coronial Inquiry, changes were put in place. None of which addressed the suspension instability which caused several of the accidents. Instead, several surviving Series IIIs were sacrificed for ROP drop-testing. What they came up with was cross bracing and diagonal supports for the frontbow only. These were custom welded to each existing installation. New diagonalbraces attach to the top of the body’s sides via captive plates. However no reinforcing to the simple Birmabright panels was performed. The new assembly was technically removable but no longer intended as such for operational use. Nor could it be interchanged with any other vehicle. Padding was not provided for any of the occupants. At this point, a decal is introduced, identifying this new assembly as ROP. The decal is supplied by Rover Australia, the revised bar assembly was not.

Undoubtedly some Army Engineer signed off on the new design. However this has to be viewed within the confines of military use and military (Commonwealth) exemptions. There is NO paper trail to support general public road use! As can be seen from the examples provided, the design repeatedly fails to meet National Standards for road going ROP (padding, bracing, mounting points, identification...). As the original JRA front hoop has been modified, it no longer meets its original design requirements and would now be rejected automatically, for civil road use.

Some years later all ROPs and rear bows were removed for additional modification. In this case the ADF finally recognised that the original four M8 rivnuts weren’t adequate to hold the roof rack in place. Rivnuts were removed, bows drilled through and crushtubes welded in place by metal smiths. Roof racks were now truly bolted in place.

For the Land-Rover reader, one owner came up with a good argument; in that the front hoop is outside the (forward) cabin area. Presuming the model was the utility version, the pipe-work is not within the cabin. If this was a wanna-be ROP scenario I might concede to this point of view. However the belt anchorages make this part of the forward occupant area. A belt anchorage device which has had its original design tampered with.

To summarise all of the above;

In a NEW installation it is simply down to the ownerto ensure what is being purchased meets the requirements before modification begins. Collect all the (hard copy) information you can and seek the consultation of an Approved Person.

With an EXISTING installation that has not been approved it will be virtually impossible to arrive at successful conclusion. In most cases the owner doesn’t know who made the cage, let alone any of the other details previously covered. If you happen to have an installation that is original and old enough to have met an earlier standard, all you have to do is prove it! Remembering of course that just your say so or that of your mate,isn’t proof.

Lotz-A-Landies
9th January 2014, 11:24 AM
All very well and good and I am not disputing any of the information contained.

HOWEVER who is the author of the quoted statement, what are his qualifications to be making the statements and what/where/whom was it written for?

weeds
9th January 2014, 12:58 PM
All very well and good and I am not disputing any of the information contained.

HOWEVER who is the author top secret of the
quoted statement its his own quote in a separate document, I would say other members on would have the document
what are his qualifications to be making the statements qualified mechanic, ex. defence, works closely with qld transport's vehicle standards policy division and
what/where/whom was it written for? that's top secret need to know basic

:cool::cool:

just passing on somebody else's comments/views

weeds
9th January 2014, 01:00 PM
all of post 1 is the same author...........I have several of these I may post up over time

Mick_Marsh
9th January 2014, 01:12 PM
What that tells me is, if you live in Queensland, don't bother buying a Perentie.
Great. All the more for the rest of Australia.

bobslandies
9th January 2014, 01:19 PM
Very light on in detail but it sounds like someone extrapolating from this supposed project manager's bagging the vehicles in general prior to the public release:

http://www.4wdaction.com.au/articles/2011/safety-concerns-military-land-rovers

Now Retired Lieutenant Colonel Keith Simmons, of the Royal Australian Engineers and former vehicles project manager at the Army technology and Engineering Agency told 4WD Action;

“People with Defenders should not fear for their safety, unless they have added the same type of modification themselves. My biggest concern is that Defence may want to sell the end of life Perentie [modified Military Defender] to the public, without first addressing this fundamental safety issue. The public awareness I would like to encourage is to have Defence either scrap the vehicle, or fix it before on-selling them.”

Having a bit both ways here. So watch out all you Isuzu owners :D:D

Bob

weeds
9th January 2014, 01:19 PM
What that tells me is, if you live in Queensland, don't bother buying a Perentie.
Great. All the more for the rest of Australia.

it actually applies to all states....this guy is probably one of only a handful that do there job properly although he has extensive knowledge of the 110's.....

I recall a post on here from a guy in NT being questioned about the ROPS....and couldn't get full rego

like I said in another post, the safety certificate system is flawed as you can be fail at one shop and be passed at another all in the one day

the safety certificate I got for the IIA I owned was done in less and five minutes, he checked the number and lights that was it, he even told me which transport depot to go to as the staff that come out to check everything were not that experienced

I haven't heard of anybody having issues in qld

Lotz-A-Landies
9th January 2014, 01:26 PM
:cool::cool:

just passing on somebody else's comments/viewsHmmm

Quoting unreferenced sources is no better than mentioning something that my mate's, grandmother's, Brother in Law's mechanic said.

What I find interesting is that we are discussion of the safety issues of ex-Army bars used as seat belt anchorages. We then come up with a consensus that they are not approved and therefore unsafe anchorages.

However! When you compare the bars to the anchorages on a regular hardtop Perentie 110, we find that the whole roof (and upper seat belt anchorage) is held on with about a eight 3/8" bolts. "And the hard tops are compliant."

Mick_Marsh
9th January 2014, 01:51 PM
it actually applies to all states....this guy is probably one of only a handful that do there job properly although he has extensive knowledge of the 110's.....

I recall a post on here from a guy in NT being questioned about the ROPS....and couldn't get full rego

like I said in another post, the safety certificate system is flawed as you can be fail at one shop and be passed at another all in the one day

the safety certificate I got for the IIA I owned was done in less and five minutes, he checked the number and lights that was it, he even told me which transport depot to go to as the staff that come out to check everything were not that experienced

I haven't heard of anybody having issues in qld
I know the ADR's are Australia wide but lots of Perenties have been registered in Vic without issue.
I think there are people out to make life difficult for no reason.

bobslandies
9th January 2014, 01:53 PM
Read more:

Keith Simmons - Australia | LinkedIn (http://au.linkedin.com/pub/keith-simmons/53/941/575)

No longer with NSW RMS.

(read promoting extremely restrictive vehicle modifications, ludicrous handling and brake testing after modifications, etc, etc)

Bob

weeds
9th January 2014, 01:55 PM
I know the ADR's are Australia wide but lots of Perenties have been registered in Vic without issue.
I think there are people out to make life difficult for no reason.

difficult or following the rules......geez post on here you are going to fit wheel spacers and the place explodes.

just posting for members to keep in the back of there minds....oh and so I can say I told ya so:p:p

weeds
9th January 2014, 02:01 PM
Hmmm

Quoting unreferenced sources is no better than mentioning something that my mate's, grandmother's, Brother in Law's mechanic said. what's it matter who his name is.........i'm happy with his comments as I have worked with him for years and he is pretty switched on.....you choose what you want with the info

What I find interesting is that we are discussion of the safety issues of ex-Army bars used as seat belt anchorages. We then come up with a consensus that they are not approved and therefore unsafe anchorages.

However! When you compare the bars to the anchorages on a regular hardtop Perentie 110, we find that the whole roof (and upper seat belt anchorage) is held on with about a eight 3/8" bolts. agree I believe it has to be better than the original setup and I think he even mentions this....did he mention unsafe or just not approved?


I edited/change some of the text out as some members here would probably take offence...

Mick_Marsh
9th January 2014, 02:05 PM
It's interesting.
Do you actually require engineering certification for the ROPS or do you only need to demonstrate that it complies with the ADR?
I think no amount of engineering would be able to demonstrate a spacer would comply with the ADR.

Lotz-A-Landies
9th January 2014, 02:08 PM
I edited/change some of the text out as some members here would probably take offence...Hi Kelvin

I'm not having a go at you, and this is an internet social network forum, not a peer reviewed publication. However if we are quoting important information it should be referenced back to some credible source.

Otherwise it's merely heresay and no more credible than stating its my great-aunt's pudding recipe.

weeds
9th January 2014, 02:09 PM
It's interesting.
Do you actually require engineering certification for the ROPS or do you only need to demonstrate that it complies with the ADR?
I think no amount of engineering would be able to demonstrate a spacer would comply with the ADR.

good question....might go and do some more reading

a discussion in the office re: being difficult, if the police books you for 110km/hr in a 100km/hr is he being difficult or following the rules:angel:....I would say my mate s following the rules, if that deemed being difficult than good and well I think he would be happy with that label

weeds
9th January 2014, 02:18 PM
Hi Kelvin

I'm not having a go at you, and this is an internet social network forum, not a peer reviewed publication. However if we are quoting important information it should be referenced back to some credible source.

Otherwise it's merely heresay and no more credible than stating its my great-aunt's pudding recipe.

even if I posted a name how do you deem the text is credible?

members can make there own mind up..........even if the info is not 100% there its pretty close therefore it just adds a bit to the big picture

I was going to post up a similar document/view about GM conversions in to series. but all the experts would rather dispute things instead getting into a constructive descussion

Blknight.aus
9th January 2014, 02:21 PM
meh...

Id rather be in a perentie than a deefer in a proper roll over.


hell Id rather be in a perentie than a deefer in a lay down. (and I've been there twice with student drivers.)

weeds
9th January 2014, 02:28 PM
meh...

Id rather be in a perentie than a deefer in a proper roll over.


same here, in fact I was glad when I was issued a 6x6 GMV .........all I was pointing out was the rules, which you quite often point out to members

Lotz-A-Landies
9th January 2014, 02:29 PM
even if I posted a name how do you deem the text is credible?

members can make there own mind up..........even if the info is not 100% there its pretty close therefore it just adds a bit to the big picture

I was going to post up a similar document/view about GM conversions in to series. but all the experts would rather dispute things instead getting into a constructive descussionAll discussion is useful.

The issue about a source, if we know who it is and their qualifications we/the members CAN make up their minds.

If we know that they are a university graduate automotive engineer we'll have one opinion, if its a mechanic we may have another opinion, and if its merely a driving instructor then we may discount the information altogether.

weeds
9th January 2014, 02:34 PM
All discussion is useful.

The issue about a source, if we know who it is and their qualifications we/the members CAN make up their minds.

If we know that they are a university graduate automotive engineer we'll have one opinion, if its a mechanic we may have another opinion, and if its merely a driving instructor then we may discount the information altogether.

well, he is a mechanic, can do safety certificate and assess mods and fit blue plates.....and

may have provided advice/info/assisted qld transport in the development of policy ....and

owns at least one land rover...and

doesn't do forums because there are too many &$@JH))(

Bigbjorn
9th January 2014, 02:41 PM
Interesting that a ROPS or FOPS structure on industrial plant like earthmoving equipment has to be tested and certified before it can be called such. Not economic or practical for one offs by small engineering works. This is the reason for the disappearance of the traditional (and operator preferred) scrub canopy from new bulldozers. A lawyer's picnic if an operator was injured beneath an uncertified canopy.

Lotz-A-Landies
9th January 2014, 02:42 PM
We all feel like avoiding the dialogue on forums at times, on the other hand if we don't have some experts around the place then all we may be left with is inexperienced, unqualified and know-it-alls.

Not that qualifications are the be all and end all of knowledge, there are a lot of people around the place who recieved their qualificatons from the university of life, they know what works and what doesn't which is valuable, however some topics need better or more concise information that that.