antarmike

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?15059-Probably-a-silly-question-but...&highlight=Tilt

and for a glossary, do we need a glossary? There are hundreds out there to suit every need...well lots of them anyway,

http://www.glossarist.com/glossaries/government-politics-military/military/default.asp

http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blglossary.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_military_abbreviations

http://www.alphadictionary.com/directory/Specialty_Dictionaries/Military/

http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/military/glossary.html

http://www.military-dictionary.org/

http://www.f-16.net/glossary.html

etc, etc,

A 10 year old vehicle imported into the UK is except from IVA so why should a over 10 year old UK vehicle have to go through it .

The ten year old vehicle (say for the sake of argument an American one) will have been designed with American Safety standards of the time applied to the design, It is therefore basically safe. Difference in safety standards between USA and UK may mean some things need minor modification, but it was built with the safety of the driver, passengers and other road users in mind.

Stormer had no consideration made with regard to the safety of other road users, as it was never intended for road use. It is a battlefield weapon, if you drive it through enemy troops it is a bonus if you brain a few of them as you pass through!

The crew have limited protection inside the vehicle, but it is primarily a weapon, and fighting efficiency comes before worrying about a blooded brow or two.

IVA is more than C&U Its hard enough to get a new 2010 american import through never mind a MV . Sharp edges and headrests is just one thing that will fail.

 

 

Looking at IVA, the system is designed to protect other road users, the driver and any passengers he might be carrying..

If IVA replaces type approval for production vehicles, by applying the same rules (used in type approval) to one off vehicles, then it is assumed a vehicle is only safe for the driver, his passengers, and other road users if it can pass an IVA.

If a vehicle would not pass IVA can I suggest it is unsafe for the driver, his passengers and other road users.

If it has sharp projections, both externally and internally, which prevent it passing the standard of safe design necessary to protect everyone in case of an accident, or just in regular use, then perhaps it should not be on the road.

The driver can choose to endanger himself by sitting in a box full of sharp corners if he likes, but is it right for him to expect passengers to accept the risk he himself is willing to take.

It is assumed that if you are offered a lift, then the vehicle you ride in is safe. Safety standards, whether you agree with them or not, are enforced by the government and its agencies because some people are not sensible enough to recognise the risk they are taking or the danger they are putting themselves and other road users in.

What would happen if a Stormer hit a pedestrian at 30 MPH? There is no part of its design that is thought out or engineered with the safety of pedestrians in mind.

What happens if you front end smash Granny going to the Supermarket in her Ford Focus. Crumple zones on the front of both vehicles are there to absorb the total energy of an impact, and both the Crumple zone on on the car doing the hitting and the crumple zone on the car being hit are expected to take part in absorbing energy. They are there for everybody's safety. The proposal is to run a 12 ton Armoured vehicle around at 40 MPH, when it has not designed method of absorbing impact energy, nothing, not even a bumper!

Being highly controversial, if the vehicle will not meet IVA, it is not safe and should not be on the road,

We haven't even started on "in running nips" etc, unprotected parts of the tracks, wheels drive sprockets, which could catch and drag in pedestrians fingers, arms, clothing etc. The whole safety of the design needs looking at in terms of IVA. and it seems to me to fall a long way short of what is expected in terms of safety for a 1990's vehicle. I cannot see how any inspector would pass this vehicle, but lets wait and see.

Discuss.

Not wishing to compromise a serious discussion with trivia I will nevertheless point out that Sharp edges and Headrests are actually two things, not one.....

I did try that but lost three fingers...only kidding

so just get it up to temp, turn the engine off and try to turn the fan by hand?

 

Cheers

 

Mick

well try it by hand with the engine cold first, so you have a comparison....then warm it up....

Now i am probaly completly wrong her but as far as i know the C&u regs state you must have a primary and secondery braking sysytem When you take a vehicle for test they test the foot brake and the handbrake. eg primary and second system from what i read read from these posts is that somehow it has got mixed up and people are assuming you have to have a third system between these two EG if main brakes fail then you have to have some thing thats stops you before resorting to hand brake. if this is the case what is it?.

It has a multi-stroke ratchet handbrake that may not meet the requirements for a secondary brake system, because to comply it has to be capable of being gradually applied and released.

The Requirements for primary brake system say if it is hydraulic it has to be split into two circuits working on two separate axles. the hydraulic brakes are not split. The problem seems to be as much about the primary brakes, as it does about the secondary brakes. Any modern vehicle with Hydraulic service brakes must have them divided into two circuits.

If the braking is Hydraulic, it has to be split into more than one circuit, it isn,t and it isn't really feasible to modify the system so that it is split, or so I see it.

What it says is, "The vehicle must be fitted with a split (dual) circuit brake system with each part of the system operating on at least two wheels (one on each side",)

A single Hydraulic brake system is not acceptable on a 1990's vehicle...

Yes i know vehicles have split braking systems but these are not tested individually tested cos it you would have to cut a brake pipe to test it they are only interested if the vehicle has two independant means of stopping vehicles and it meets standards. Has the vehicle in question got a handbrake ? Idont know

You do not have to split unions, cut pipes or anything to test a split hydraulic braking circuit. There is no connection between either circuit, each having a separate half of the master cylinder. Checking brakes on a roller tester checks the split system, because if the front brakes work, that half of the master cylinder, the pipes and union and the wheel cylinders on that circuit are all okay, move the vehicle forward on the rollers and check the second axle, if brakes work then other half of master cylinder, pipes unions and the rear brake cylinders are okay. I completely fail to see your point, sorry.

Devils advocate hat on for a moment :

 

A tracked vehicle has in effect 3 braking systems usually - the normal road brakes, the steering brakes and the parking brake.

 

If the primary road brake fails the vehicle can be brought to a halt by a rapid "on- off" application of the steering brake from one side to the other. I say rapid as the braking effect is required, not the turning. Works on my old bus (tried in the arena at W&P first year I had it) - maybe 50% of the effect of the road brakes and a slight "squirreling" motion. Bearing in mind there is a hell of a lot more rolling resistance on a tracked, armoured vehicle than on a wheeled equivalent of equivalent size and weight and they lose speed faster when the power is removed.

 

Could that be argued to be a secondary braking system applied from a single point of control that is applied and release gradually, will stop the vehicle and that works within a % of the main system???

If I read regulations correctly, then a brake circuit or system has to work to both wheels on the same axle. I know we are talking tracks, but primary and secondary braking system must each work to wheels on the same axle AT THE SAME TIME. The Steering brakes do not count as part of the braking system of the vehicle.

Stormer was developed from CVR(T) . It has extra road wheels, some versions are quite late, Stormer 30 was not introduced until 1997, and indeed some website seem to indicate that Stormer is still in production and offered for sale by BAE systems. I don't know whrther this is correct or not. Has Xrtreme given us a date for the particular one discussed onthis thread?

Website seem to indicate that the Army did not select Stormer The Starstreak High-Velocity Missile system AKA - SP HVM. until 1986.

Also this was the date Stormer Recon vehicle for the SP HVM. was selected also.

In 1995 the Stormer vehicle was equipped with the US Alliant Techsystems M163 Volcano system and designated the Shielder Anti-Tank Mine dispenser. Its made up of 40 tube launchers, each containing 6 mines. It entered service in 1999.

The date of first use, is not the date of first use of the type, but the date of first use of the actual vehicle being considered.

This link may be of some use

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/repository/M1%20Inspection%20Manual%20May%2009.pdf

It is the IVA manual for passenger vehicles

Lists the following as covered

 

A vehicle subject to The Basic IVA Requirements is either:

(j) an armoured vehicle as defined in Annex II.A of the 2007 Directive.

 

j. Armoured Vehicle A vehicle intended for the protection of conveyed passengers and/or goods and complying with armour plating anti-bullet requirements. "anti - bullet requirements" shall be interpreted as meaning; the driver and passenger compartment (front, rear and sides including doors and glazing

are capable of withstanding ballistic penetration from small arms fire. e.g. materials to CEN 1029 or an equivalent level of protection.

 

However Armoured vehicle is probably aimed at cars for mafia bosses and not tracked military vehicles.

 

Mike

If you fancy armoured Jag, Range Rover. Mercedes, Defender, Witham's have just listed a load on Milweb...

I suspect that it has to gradually apply and release the brakes to be a compliant system.

I strongly suspect some mods would be needed to get it passed. Brakes are not one of the things armoured cars are exempt from in the test.

The other problem being does a Stormer fit into Clas M or is it one of the others or none.

Mind you if your primary brake system had failled and you had to bring the vehicle to a syop with the secondary system logic would dictate that you would not really want to drive off again. Of course this is lebislation and logic is not always required.

 

Mike

Presumably if you have a brake failure and you have a secondary brake, you might be expected to clear the carriageway and get to a safe place. It is presumably safer to get off a motorway at the first exit, than abandon the vehicle on the hard shoulder. This may entail driving a short distance in nose to tail traffic, and this involves matching and maintaining your speed to the flow of traffic, and that means feathering off the braking before you stop, if the traffic in front of you starts to move faster....The secondary braking is a functioning brake system (of admittedly less efficiency,) that allows you to continue to drive in a controlled manner until you reach a safe place....

From what I can work out the IVA replaces the C&U for vehicles that fall outside the "norm".

EG: Grey imports, one offs and low production builds.

If the IVA M1 can be applied the following is acceptable

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a service braking system that is completely independent of the control of the parking brake, capable of functioning on all wheels by a single means of operation, which will gradually increase or reduce the braking force through action of the control.

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a split (dual) circuit brake system with each part of the system operating on at least two wheels (one on each side), capable of operating in the event of a failure of the service brake or its power assistance.

Could be a sticking point with tracks or do you have brakes on the front and rear sprockets/axles?

 

The vehicle must be fitted with a secondary system, capable of operating in the event of a failure of the service brake or its power assistance See Note 1

Note 1: The secondary system can be either one half of the split system (following failure of the other half) or secondary can be on the handbrake (Secondary/Park).

So the parking brake could be the secondary system.

 

Basically gives two options for the secondary brake system.

 

Mentions this on parking brakes

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated and released whether the vehicle is stationary or moving.

Makes sense especially if it acts as the secondary system.

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated on all wheels of at least one axle enabling the vehicle to be held on an up or down gradient even in the absence of the driver.

Again quite logical. Might proove interesting if vehicle has a transmission brake on drive shaft (ie: Land Rover)

The ‘parking’ braking system must be capable of being operated using a control which is independent of the service brake, and once applied capable of being maintained in the ‘on’ position solely by mechanical means.

Again seems quite logical so you need to pull a lever. Could be a problem if you opt for an electonic operated parking brake like on certain VW's and Audi's

 

This is followed by sections on how to test the systems for compliance.This includes operation and inspection.

 

Quite an interesting read as it could be applied to many vehicles that we may have or want to register in the future, where it may not be possible to apply C&U via manufacturers approval at design stage.

 

Mike

The big question is whether the secondary brake must be of a design "which will gradually increase or reduce the braking force through action of the control" as must be the service brake.

If the secondary brake has to function in the same way (ie interms of being able to be gradually released) as the primary brakes then Stormers ratchete brake does not fit the bill. It can be slowly ratcheted on, but it can only be completely released, all in one sudden action.

The almost as big question is whether, unmodified, it can provide enough braking,

and lastly can be be used at full speed to pull the vehicle to a halt?

The dual circuit brakes makes sense, as you say if one circuit fails you'll still have braking on either the front or rear axle, as found on all modern cars.

 

However, I'm sure I've owned several Series Land Rover's (a long time ago now so the memory might be playing tricks) that only had single circuit brakes. So if you loose a brake line/wheel cylinder the whole lot goes.. surely that means there's quite a few Landy's driving about out there that don't meet C&U regs?

 

Think the best way, as said, is just to get it booked in for a voluntary inspection. I'd want to know one way or another, that it definitely was legal before taking it on the road regardless of whether the DVLA had registered it or not. In this day and age, its just not worth the risk. If somebody got hurt and they later found the vehicle to be non-compliant, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. One of the reasons it makes me angry that even now there is a 432 on eBay for sale as a limo service!

 

James

What is required depends on when the vehicle was first used. Series Land-Rovers meet the standard laid down for them under the present C and U regs. More modern (and heavier) vehicles are required to have a backup secondary system, not required on early models.

As the vehicle in question is a CVR(T), then it does have separate braking systems, hyd main brake, hand operated parking brake and steering brakes on separate system. No modifications this is how they are.

That to me reads as if there is no secondary braking system. On a hydraulic system a split system, with tandem master cylinders , one half feeding cylinders on front axlkes, one feeding rear axle cylinders. provides the secondary braking system. This is a secondary braking system because if one hydraulic circuit fails, then you have some (though limited) braking from the other circuit.

If Stormer has only brakes on one drum or disc each side then the circuit cannot be split and the is no secondary braking system, since if anything out of the master cylinder, any pipe work or the calipers, wheel cylinders were to fail there is no back up sysytem.

At this point in time it seems to me the weight of evidence suggests MOD are correct, there is no secondary braking system.

If Stormers handbrake is a ratchet handbrake, then brake pressure MAY be able to be applied gradually, but it cannot be released gradually, it can only be "knocked off", A secondary braking system, as I understand it has to be controlable, and proportional, and capable of appliying AND RELEASING the brakes in a controlled manner.

It will be a requirement of C and U that the secondary braking system can offer a set percentage of the normal service brakes.

IVA is more than C&U Its hard enough to get a new 2010 american import through never mind a MV . Sharp edges and headrests is just one thing that will fail.

 

A 10 year old vehicle imported into the UK is except from IVA so why should a over 10 year old UK vehicle have to go through it .

 

Lighting regs is easy and its clear theres 2 separate braking systems on the cvrt range anyone that has owned one knows it.

 

Anyone know an engineer willing to write a report

Is the second braking system designed to slow the vehicle at speed, or is just for parking? A vehicle can have a system for a handbrake, that is unsuitable for bringing the vehicle to rest from full speed. I understand a secondary braking system to be more than just a handbrake. On the service brake, if it were to fail, how can the vehicle be stopped from full speed?

Is the service brake air operated, air over hydraulic, servo hydraulic or what. If it is air operated or air over hydraulic would total loss of air pressure in the primary reserve, cause the vehicle brakes to come on? Is there a second air tank, protected with a circuit protection valve, and a second brake vlave (i.e. one that is progressive and offers accurate control of the applied braking) run from this. Can anyone decribe, beyond where the brake shoes, calipers work, what actually comes before them, Ie what is between the brake pedal and the friction material?

What percentage of service brake efficiency can be achieved by the secondary braking sysytem?

Possibly one reason might be that anything originating from VOSA needs to looked at under a microscope from both sides - preferably by a lawyer.

 

What ever the organization may issue could well be with the best intent - but experience here on HMVF and elsewhere on other forums seems to reveal a disconcerting lack of knowledge amongst it's operatives in the field. Thus if VOSA operatives conduct the IVA then there are grounds to fear that the result might be subject to personal opinions and not the spirit/letter of the regulations.

If the IVA were to be carried out by trained and qualified independent companies then there would be greater trust in their findings.

If an independent engineer inspected this Stormer and found it did meet requirements, and this conclusion went off to DVLA, they would then have two reports, one from the army saying it doesn't comply and one from an engineer saying it does. DVLA have said they cannot be in a position where they have to decide whether it comlpies or not, and that is exactly what they would then have to do, since they now have two pieces of paper with contradictory content, and they would have to decide which to accept.

They have said they will accept VOSA IVA.

My advice is still, forget independant engineers, do as they ask and go for an IVA.

To quote the Freedom of Information disclosures

" The most logical route to approval for relevant vehicles would be the IVA inspection scheme offered by VOSA. This will eliminate the need for DVLA to attempt to gauge whether the vehicle complies with legal requirements as VOSA would be testing the vehicle to check this."

Straightforward, sensible advice, why try to do other than the suggested solution offered by VOSA?

Just wondering, and maybe I am being a bit niave, but could it be worth writing a polite letter to the Secretary of State (Theresa May? As if I understand correctly she has the power to grant exemptions?) explaining the situation that essentially we are a responsible hobby, who get a lot of joy from our vehicles and in turn give a lot back to the general public in the form of shows, events and fundraising etc. That mostly we do very little mileage on the road (as previously stated not many people would be willing to take tracked armour on much more than a 10 mile round trip) perhaps a few times a year. And that we maintain and restore our vehicles to very high standard and would represent a tiny percentage of total road traffic, of whom, judging by what I saw on my 60 miles of motorway driving tonight, mostly don't deserve to ride a push-bike let alone be allowed a driving licence! Although maybe miss that last bit out! But you get the idea, just generally putting across our message as has been stating in previous posts..

 

James

She has the power to grant exemption to operated military vehicles. ie those under control of the state. she also has the power to grant exemption to exceptionally wide loads ( i.e. those over 4.3 m.). She is only empowered to grant these limited exemptions. She does not have the power to grant exemption to privately owned ex Military vehicles.

The way forward has to be IVA . Everybody is saying so, so maybe instead of going round and round the same erroneous arguments, why not just take it for IVA inspection and see what happens ,,,,

Out of interest, what ARE the C + U secondary braking requirements?

It has always 'bemused' me that for an ordinary car 'MOT' the handbrake is tested as a secondary braking system, when in a lot of cases, it has been designed solely as a Parking brake.

Chas.

Secondary braking is normally a totally independant system to slow the vehicle from speed if the normal service braking system fails. Whether C and U define Secondary braking in this sort of way I do not know.

Amongst systems normally regarded as seconadry braking (electromagnetic retarders, Voith, Jake brake etc,), the most common secondary braking system, as it applies to HGV,s and the like is the Spring brake chamber.

The brakes are normally controlled by air pressure, but if the air pressure system fails, the brakes will be applied by spring pressure, totally independently of the air system.

On older vehicles the Secondary braking system was by dual diaphragm Brake chambers, and two air tanks, one fed from the other through Circuit protection valves. The normal service brake is fed via the foot valve from one, and this applies air to one diaphragm, a hand valve applies air from the second tank to the other diaphragm, should the foot valve, or its associated air tank fail. (on trailers the secondary brake chambers used to be operated via the Blue Auxiliary suzie.)

A transmission brake is not normally considered secondary braking, because it is not designed to be used at speed

How are the service brakes of Stormer applied? Is it air pressure or good old hydraulics (brake fluid). If it is by air, does it have spring brake chambers and an inverse foot valve, or is it air operated by direct proportional air pressure?

it's amazing how someone being very greedy can screw something like this all up....

I would very much like to know what your last comment means, Are you free to PM me with more?

What actually happaned to all the vehicles, did they get sold off into private hands? There were some real crackers by the look of it but I don't seem to have seen many if any of them since.

I thought not all the exhibits at Beverley were owned by the museum, I thought some were in private ownership whilst at the museum, and only on loan. I recall going round and seeing small stickers on things saying who owned them, but I may be wrong.

The Wimpey is looking good...

I love the way the Pilots scramble towards the Spitfires, which turn in Hurricanes as they climb into the cockpit, and taxi away, but turn back into Spitfires at take off. Brilliant continuity!!!

Whilst searching for another picture I found this one. Who needs recovery vehicles anyway?

When the driver of this vehicle knocked out his front axle, they just loaded it on the back and drove it to AEC Southall for rebuilding!

You only had to ask No rope going to anything on the other side for a controlled lowering though....?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37762[/ATTACH]

Three springy wooden pads for it to land on!

From the same source, this is I believe the capstan equipped lorry I referred to.

I think the capstan is hidden under the raised panel, which are removed for use, just ahead of the rear wheels, and there is a similar capstan on the other side of the vehicle.

This must be amongst the dafter

http://carnewsarticles.com/2010/08/09/jet-powered-school-bus-reaches-350-mph-eliminates-tardy-slips/