latest dvla problem

[antarmike]

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.

[cosrec]

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?. 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

Edited November 23, 2010 by cosrec

[steveo578]

cosrec

......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 ......

Surely a split system on a car can be tested as the halves of the dual system act diagnally -(right front left rear -left front right rear) therefore any fault will show up in the standard brake test. Obviously this cannot apply to a tracked vehicle although I would have thought that a vehicle with both steering and main brakes should clasify as two separate systems -although obviously predating C & U regs if I recall correctly Shermans and other Cletrac systems use steering brakes as a main brake.

Edited November 23, 2010 by steveo578
quotes

[antarmike]

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.

Edited December 1, 2010 by antarmike

[ChasSomT.]

Like quite a few instances in this hobby of ours, we are all trying to apply rules and regulations that weren't intended to apply to our vehicles.

Diagonally split braking systems applied to a tracked vehicle? Is it April 1st?

 

Surely 'We' as a hobby, ought to be discussing these 'difficulties' with our elected representatives, maybe not Teresa May, but Phillip Hammond (?) the Transport Minister.

 

Can't we get together and sort out a simple list of 'problem areas' where the legislation simply doesn't 'fit', and suggest the simplest means of making sure we comply with the spirit of the 'law', and keep our hobby SAFE for everybody?

 

Just my 2d's worth. :-)

 

Chas.

[Sidewinder]

Trying not to take too much of a the glass is half empty view, but as you said yourself it is a 'hobby'.

 

Most of us want to drive these vehicles on the road for the enjoyment of ourselves and others, not for any particular purpose. We do not NEED to drive them on the road, there are other ways of transporting them to and from shows. Ways that are legal, such as on the back of a low-loader. As such if the vehicles don't meet the required standards (of which we're taking pretty important issues such as steering and braking, not just little niggles). Are the politicians really going to rewrite the laws to accommodate what is a pretty small minority, just so we can go for a jolly every now and again when, as stated in previous posts we really have no real grounds for running them on the road in the first place?Sorry, but I don't think so.

 

However, if we are going to try and fight this, which despite the underlying theme of this post I'm not against , we do need to get organised and get as much weight behind us as possible.

 

I'm not trying to be negative, but if we are to have a chance of succeeding then we need to be prepared for and understand the arguments that will be used against us. OK, just for example we might entertain and educate the public, but it makes no difference at all whether the vehicle is driven there or transported to the show on a flatbed. We might be preserving history, but again does that require having to drive it on the road...? As it is I am struggling to justify a reason for having no other choice than driving it on the road, other than our own personal fun which unfortunately, I can't imagine will make a good arguement for convincing the politians and anti's.

 

James

Edited November 23, 2010 by Sidewinder
to add final paragraph

[N.O.S.]

Fair comment, Sidewinder.

 

And whilst there may still be some opportunities to get a few vehicles through the system by presenting well-reasoned cases on specific points, I guess we do have to be realistic about the future, and to that end here is how I see the process for registering post 1973 mvs going:

 

I imagine that DVLA will require an SVA for any vehicle which falls outside a fairly conventional category. This is the only sensible way they can ensure that only vehicles which comply in all respects with the relevant regulations do get registered. I don't think the argument of 'you've already registered some of this type, so why not mine?' will work, however unfair it may seem.

 

Try putting yourself in their shoes - how else could you do it?

 

Sadly I cannot see anyone going to the expense of obtaining Type Approval for any breed of unconventional mv.

 

I would hope that DVLA will not be unduly concerned with any non-compliant vehicles which may have already slipped through the net (for whatever reason), so hopefully those owners can continue to enjoy the priviledge of driving them on the public highway.

[antarmike]

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.....

Edited November 24, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

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.

Edited November 23, 2010 by antarmike

[steveo578]

antarmike

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!

 

While I take your point I cannot wholy agree with it, anyone involved in movement control in the forces would be less than happy with that kind of design rational. Your own troops safety has to be taken into consideration as has civilians and inferstructure in the training area esp. as Stormer like other CRVT are not under the same area restrictions of MBTs etc.

 

Here in the North East we have on going problems with enviromentalist ( IMO barely disguised anti-war and anarchist groups -but that's in danger of becoming political) who are against movement of various military vehicles both on track and on transporter and I have to say that some of the CVRT and other "light AFVs" do damage the inferstructure -mainly due to it being badly designed (the inferstructure that is) for other political reason -often as anti-car measures.

 

Steve

[Marmite!!]

At the end of the day why not do what the DfT suggested in post 153 & take it for a VOSA IVA which as stated will satisfy the DVLA for registration purposes, if it doesn't pass then at least you would know what you need to do to make it compliant.

[cosrec]

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.

 

I apologise as well about the split braking system but i think the issue was getting confused by goinging into to much detail basically it boils down to one thing will it pass an examination. ARe the primary and secondary brakinging systen up to standards Any body hell bent on regestering one should as first Book the vehicle in for a commercial road worthiness certifiate at the test station and they will tell you if it complies with cu regs if not why not and then see if anything can be altered if it fails. Also i dont agree with on the handbrake piont i have taken on many occassions a Big Ben and also an AEC mammoth major both of which have rachet on knock off handbrakes also many artic trailers use this system]

Edited November 24, 2010 by Marmite!!
quote tags added

[mike65]

Also i dont agree with on the handbrake piont i have taken on many occassions a Big Ben and also an AEC mammoth major both of which have rachet on knock off handbrakes also many artic trailers use this system]

 

Think some confusion maybe creeping in.

You need a service braking system.

You need a secondary braking system

You need a parking brake.

 

The secondary system could be a dual circuit/split circuit system (as per a car) or it could be a suitable parking brake system.

The parking brake needs to be mechanically operated and cable of holding the vehicle without any assistance.

If the parking brake is also the secondary system it should be able to be gradually applied and released when the vehicle is on motion. As you can with a cable operated handbrake, but not with a Mercedes foot operated and handle release system.

I believe Antarmike is saying that as the parking brake, being a ratchet system cannot be gradually released it is unlikly to be acceptable as a secondary braking system, but it is acceptable as a parking brake.

 

Mike

[sirhc]

You need a secondary braking system

 

For which vehicles and built from which date? There will be plenty of vehicles without a secondary braking system...

[antarmike]

For which vehicles and built from which date? There will be plenty of vehicles without a secondary braking system...

safariswing's link to the 'Hughes Guides' starts off:-

 

"Brakes

Braking systems of certain vehicles FIRST USED ON OR AFTER 1st April 1983. . "

 

Chas.

 

Try looking at the "Hughes guide"

 

The important point is Stormer needs a secondary braking system, lets stay focussed and not confuse this issue by bringing in older vehicles that don't.

Edited November 24, 2010 by antarmike

[antarmike]

Think some confusion maybe creeping in.

You need a service braking system.

You need a secondary braking system

You need a parking brake.

 

The secondary system could be a dual circuit/split circuit system (as per a car) or it could be a suitable parking brake system.

The parking brake needs to be mechanically operated and cable of holding the vehicle without any assistance.

If the parking brake is also the secondary system it should be able to be gradually applied and released when the vehicle is on motion. As you can with a cable operated handbrake, but not with a Mercedes foot operated and handle release system.

I believe Antarmike is saying that as the parking brake, being a ratchet system cannot be gradually released it is unlikly to be acceptable as a secondary braking system, but it is acceptable as a parking brake.

 

Mike

Exactly my point.

[LoggyDriver]

Think some confusion maybe creeping in.

You need a service braking system.

You need a secondary braking system

You need a parking brake.

 

The secondary system could be a dual circuit/split circuit system (as per a car) or it could be a suitable parking brake system.

The parking brake needs to be mechanically operated and cable of holding the vehicle without any assistance.

If the parking brake is also the secondary system it should be able to be gradually applied and released when the vehicle is on motion. As you can with a cable operated handbrake, but not with a Mercedes foot operated and handle release system.

I believe Antarmike is saying that as the parking brake, being a ratchet system cannot be gradually released it is unlikly to be acceptable as a secondary braking system, but it is acceptable as a parking brake.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

 

So where does that leave Jap 4x4's then? My Hilux has a twist and release parking brake that cannot be released gradually. You twist and it releases, it can't be done gradually. My vehicle passed an IVA and it's MOT every year.

[antarmike]

So where does that leave Jap 4x4's then? My Hilux has a twist and release parking brake that cannot be released gradually. You twist and it releases, it can't be done gradually. My vehicle passed an IVA and it's MOT every year.

 

It probably has split circuit Hydraulic brakes, and splitting the hydraulic brakes counts as primary and secondary braking systems. The handbrake is then simply a parking brake, not the secondary braking system .Simples!

Edited November 24, 2010 by antarmike

[Marmite!!]

 

DfT Research Database

 

Project: Driver Perception of the Performance of the Secondary Braking Systems

 

Reference: S0025/VD

Last update: 03/12/2003 09:17:58

Objectives

 

The main objectives of the project are to:

* determine the number of motor vehicle accidents where brake failure has been reported as the cause of, or a contributory factor to, the accident;

* determine driver reaction to brake failure;

* propose solutions to modify vehicle construction or braking system design to improve secondary brake performance in the event of primary brake system failure;

* propose solutions as to how the driver of a vehicle could most effectively be informed of the existence and operation of a secondary braking system; and

* develop draft proposals for amendments to European legislation to reflect the findings of this research.

Description

 

Modern vehicle braking systems include an emergency, secondary, braking system to ensure that the driver can brake the vehicle in the event of a failure in the main braking system. However, there is anecdotal evidence that, in accidents where vehicles have suffered perceived 'brake failure', the drivers are not making use of the secondary braking system and believe that the vehicle has no brakes at all. The result being that the vehicle is involved in a collision that possibly could have been avoided.

This perception of total brake failure may be due to a number of issues including the feel of the brake pedal, the lower deceleration possible with the secondary brake system, or simply a lack of understanding of these systems. This research will investigate the extent of the problem and offer solutions, including alternative vehicle/brake system construction and how drivers may be informed of this safety feature.

As part of this research the contractor will carry out tests on a range of subjects using a car simulator and specially modified car to determine driver reaction to brake failure. This will be carried out using a range of drivers of mixed driving abilities and will provide valuable information on driver reaction and attitude to the brake failure.

Contractor(s)

 

ICE Ergonomics

Holywell Building, Holywell Way, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3UZ

+44 (0)1509 283300

MIRA Ltd

Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU

+44 (0)2476 355000

Institute for Transport Studies

University of Leeds, 38 University Road, Leeds, LS2 9JT

Tel: +44 (0)113 233 5325 / 5326

Contract details

 

Cost to the Department: £224,365.00

Actual start date: 28 August 2001

Actual completion date: 02 October 2003

Publication(s)

 

03-0235036. Drivers' Perception of Secondary Braking Systems - Final Report

Author: MIRA Ltd

Publication date: 02/10/2003

Unpublished

Source: Contact

alan.mendelson@dft.gsi.gov.uk

 

Summary of results

 

1. The results show that all 48 subjects continued to press the brake pedal to try and stop the car when the brakes failed. With a single circuit failure 31 out of the 48 subjects failed to stop within the required distance and, with a vacuum servo failure, 34 out of the 48 subjects failed to stop. However, the vehicle easily complied with the international regulations and to make the regulations more severe would be pointless because the driver would still not be able to stop.
   
   
   New technology is developing that would allow vehicle manufacturers to maintain standard vehicle brake pedal feel in the event of system or servo failure, but this technology currently is very expensive and could not be justified in a Cost Benefit Analysis.
   
   
    
   
   
   The report recommends that driver education and pre-brake application warning devices are the best way forward. These are very acceptable results.
   
   

Full pdf report with diagrams below..

 

Driver Perception Secondary Braking.pdf

[Timinder]

I'm not familiar with the Stormer or it's braking system, but if it has a parking brake that operates anything like a conventional car handbrake, then surely it can be modulated on and off as long as the release button is held down?

[Marmite!!]

I'm not familiar with the Stormer or it's braking system, but if it has a parking brake that operates anything like a conventional car handbrake, then surely it can be modulated on and off as long as the release button is held down?

Think it's been mentioned a few times it has a ratchet handbrake.

[Timinder]

Think it's been mentioned a few times it has a ratchet handbrake.

That's what I mean - if it's like a car ratchet handbrake, it should qualify as a secondary braking system as you can modulate the braking effort by holding the button down as you move the lever...

[Marmite!!]

That's what I mean - if it's like a car ratchet handbrake, it should qualify as a secondary braking system as you can modulate the braking effort by holding the button down as you move the lever...

The handbrake on a car is not a ratchet as such, it is held on a pawl & can be applied on released slowly. On the CVR(T) you have to ratchet the lever back & forth several times to apply the handbrake, it is released quickly when pushed forward once the hand brake has been fully applied.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Marmite!!
typo

[Timinder]

I see, a different type of ratchet.

That answers the question then, no chance of using it as a secondary system.

[LoggyDriver]

It probably has split circuit Hydraulic brakes, and splitting the hydraulic brakes counts as primary and secondary braking systems. The handbrake is then simply a parking brake, not the secondary braking system .Simples!

 

 

 

Yes it does have a dual (split) brake system. That's why then...