Thread: one view on the ROPS system

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.

Read more:

Keith Simmons - Australia | LinkedIn

No longer with NSW RMS.

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

Bob