Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Leaving aside the Very Valid braking issue, I am faintly amused by the width thing. Because of what it is, it's too wide.

 

If it was a refrigerated vehicle, it could be wider, two pallets, plus insulation, that's O.K. then!

 

Too wide to drive on the road? Put it on a trailer, that's O.K! It's a Load, Not a vehicle!

 

What utter Nonsense! It doesn't make it narrower !

 

If it doesn't meet C + U Regs. and the Army never used them on the road, why do they have lights, indicators, and yes, Brake lights?

 

The trouble is, luckily we haven't had a 'Disaster'. The 'Authorities' seem content to wait until one happens before

acting, like a blunt instrument, unfortunately, if previous events are any indication.

 

Good thread, when all is said and done!

 

'Chas.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No i did read it right when Antar Mike said SVA

 

"I am not Anti FV432. But I do think the brakes do need reworking before use, and I feel if someone where to rise to the task of applying for an SVA they may well get it.

 

That would mean an FV432 still at 2.80m could legally use the road. It hasn't got any narrower but it has got more legal.

 

I think, given an SVA 2.80m is sensible. I don't know why I feel unease because a vehicle doesn't meet C and U but it is the illegality that I find wrong."

 

and i think a determined individual could go this route

 

Also to answer question about difference between vehicle and load the limit has to be set somewhere else every body would be driving about in vehicles as wide as static caravans

Link to post
Share on other sites
When I had my Abbott (ok not 432 but 433) DVLA registeredit tracked crawler. I drove many miles and without any issues.

DVLA registered my 432 as a mini bus, again never had anyissues with it on the road.

 

I also registered a Chieftain MBT for the road, I even had police authority toself escort when moving it on the road. Now there is no doubt that the Chieftainis over width by somewhat more than a 432... again no issues and as said,driven various time on the public highway, and movements approved by Plodwithout them in attendance.

A friend has a Cent ARV road registered again withoutissues, and again we have been authorized by a different counties police forceto self escort.

Let's not forget Stalwarts also come in to the over widthcategory, so guess that also means they fail C +U regs. My stalwart coveredmany miles again without issues and was well know in my local area, or was thatI was well know and all the plod knew the vehicles.

 

OK it's been made clear the 432 may not meet C+U regs,but until DVLA stops issuing V5's why will people not enjoy drivingthem...

Enjoy life to its fullest, you live once!!!!

 

Thats right, we do only live once, hence the need to be responsible, the real issue here cant be simply about width, thats an issue on its own, but no where near as important as the issue surrounding the braking, or lack of. We know that people can drive almost anything along a road and negotiate the highway without incident. But does that mean that we must wait for someone to be killed or seriously injured before we conduct a sensible discussion, I think not. Just maybe some good will come from this thread, I sincerely hope so for all 432 owners, and potential owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot get round the fact that it is the responsibility of the owner to USE his vehicles in accordance with Construction and USE regulations. If he can't do this he should remove the vehicle from the road.

 

Being absolutely serious, not flippant or having a dig in anyway shape or form - how can the owner of ANY vehicle be expected to be familiar with the entirety of the C&U regs.???

It is not a small publication like the highway code, none of the relevant authorities encourage owners of anything to become familiar with it - indeed until fairly recently the only way to see it was to either hope the local reference library had an up to date copy or spend a large sum of money in buying a copy. This of course assumes the owner even knew the C&U regs:

(a) existed at all.

(b) were relevant to his/her type of vehicle.

 

If the DoT and its sibling organizations are so likely to be upset by people running around in things that may - or may not - contravene such regulations I contest that it is down to them to ensure that people know what the regs are, how they are applied, whether they are relevant.

One way they could start to do this is to ensure their own staff know what the regs are and how they apply. I've got over £11K's worth of proof plus an "interesting" 40 minutes worth of time wasted at Leigh Delamere services that shows they don't have a clue at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats right, we do only live once, hence the need to be responsible, the real issue here cant be simply about width, thats an issue on its own, but no where near as important as the issue surrounding the braking, or lack of. We know that people can drive almost anything along a road and negotiate the highway without incident. But does that mean that we must wait for someone to be killed or seriously injured before we conduct a sensible discussion, I think not. Just maybe some good will come from this thread, I sincerely hope so for all 432 owners, and potential owners.

 

Agree completely - width is a bit of a red herring albeit yes there does need to be a mark in the sand. Surely the redesign of the braking in the latest version shows that mod themselves have recognised this as the major issue. Even then with the number of miles covered by private owners being quite low in most cases, and the cost of mods likely to be high, maybe the best solution is for us to spread lots of knowledge about how best to maintain these vehicles braking systems to minimise risk of failure. Then at least the risk will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP for all you safety buffs out there...!!!)

 

I think the fact that abbotts and 432's have been on the road for years ignores the fact that there is now a glut of 432's on the market driving down prices and bringing lots of new people in. Ultimately that has to mean there is a greater risk of a bad accident, not because these people are irresponsible but just because there will be more chance of it happening..!

 

Dont forget though that as often happens in a couple of years some of these owners will lose interest or their circumstances will change and some of these vehicle will get scrapped, parked and left or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote=timbo;270044 Then at least the risk will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP for all you safety buffs out there...!!!)

 

ALARP now that is a good one, But what happened to good old "Removing risk at source"?

 

Removing Risk at source should be the primary objective, and is always the best solution and all safety legislation puts this as the primary objective, anything short of Removing risk at source is a fudge.

 

There is a way to reduce the risk entirely. Don't drive unmodified FV432's on the road.

Edited by antarmike
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leaving aside the Very Valid braking issue, I am faintly amused by the width thing. Because of what it is, it's too wide.

 

If it was a refrigerated vehicle, it could be wider, two pallets, plus insulation, that's O.K. then!

 

Too wide to drive on the road? Put it on a trailer, that's O.K! It's a Load, Not a vehicle!

 

What utter Nonsense! It doesn't make it narrower !

 

If it doesn't meet C + U Regs. and the Army never used them on the road, why do they have lights, indicators, and yes, Brake lights?

 

The trouble is, luckily we haven't had a 'Disaster'. The 'Authorities' seem content to wait until one happens before

acting, like a blunt instrument, unfortunately, if previous events are any indication.

 

Good thread, when all is said and done!

 

'Chas.'

 

Thats the point I've been trying to make since 2007!! Sticking it on a low loader only increases the speed at which it can travel - from 20 mph to 56 mph max.

On the other hand it doubles or even trebles the length of the vehicle on the road leading to problems on tight corners, it increases the loading on the road surface as - instead of the lower ground pressure from the tracks - the weight of the vehicle PLUS the low loader is point loaded onto the road surface via tyres.

 

And at the end of the day it is still the same width!!

 

OK - for a long journey, say from Central England to Bovvy, a low loader makes sense due to the speed issue. But for short hops of less than - say - 10 to 20 miles it makes no sense at all.

 

Any shortcomings of a vehicle compared to modern ones should- must - be taken into account by the owners as a matter of course. But as such are MV owners any worse than those who drive veteran/vintage vehicles with rod operated brakes that are prone to fading/loss of adjustment. I seriously doubt something like a 1919 Ford Model T complies with any C&U regs anywhere.

Any driver - no matter what he is driving should operate the vehicle with due regards to road conditions, other road users AND the limitations of his vehicle. Yes, owners of 432's could establish what the MoD did to retrofit secondary braking system to the ones still in service provided the info isn't classified.

 

It would be interesting to see how many 432's have been involved in accidents and of that number how many were due to brake failure compared to a total miles covered figure for all 432's.

Then compare that to the modified ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats the point I've been trying to make since 2007!! Sticking it on a low loader only increases the speed at which it can travel - from 20 mph to 56 mph max.

On the other hand it doubles or even trebles the length of the vehicle on the road leading to problems on tight corners, it increases the loading on the road surface as - instead of the lower ground pressure from the tracks - the weight of the vehicle PLUS the low loader is point loaded onto the road surface via tyres.

 

And at the end of the day it is still the same width!!

 

OK - for a long journey, say from Central England to Bovvy, a low loader makes sense due to the speed issue. But for short hops of less than - say - 10 to 20 miles it makes no sense at all.

 

Any shortcomings of a vehicle compared to modern ones should- must - be taken into account by the owners as a matter of course. But as such are MV owners any worse than those who drive veteran/vintage vehicles with rod operated brakes that are prone to fading/loss of adjustment. I seriously doubt something like a 1919 Ford Model T complies with any C&U regs anywhere.

Any driver - no matter what he is driving should operate the vehicle with due regards to road conditions, other road users AND the limitations of his vehicle. Yes, owners of 432's could establish what the MoD did to retrofit secondary braking system to the ones still in service provided the info isn't classified.

 

It would be interesting to see how many 432's have been involved in accidents and of that number how many were due to brake failure compared to a total miles covered figure for all 432's.

Then compare that to the modified ones.

 

But as I have said to you before, Low loaders are common and general road users know how they steer. Road users in general are not used to the back end of a tracked vehicle swinging out as the track rotates about the centre of contact. ( Not that an FV432 can Neutral steer, (am I correct?)) but there is an unexpected tendancy for the back of the track to move in the opposite direction to the turn. If meeting a turning FV432 or Passing one that is turning Left at a junction, there is an unpredicted movement that a general motorist does not expect. Fv432 is wide already, without this extra width being created by the swing.

 

On a low lowloader this are more predictable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to Jacks post

 

Quote from Antar Mike:

 

"If the whole thread were to go it would not help potential buyer from falling into the trap of getting an FV432 and thinking it was legal.

This thread started because someone wanted to know if FV432 was legal before parting with hard earned cash. Do you feel it right that information is withheld from him, and future potential buyers trying to make a decision."

I started this dicussion as I mentioned getting a 432 in my introduction page. I then received a pm off a member telling me not buy one as they are illegal. It was, i presumed , a simple question.

I have seen plenty of 432s on the road so could not understand the pm I received.

One answer would have been sufficient......"No because xxxxx"

 

Dont shoot the messenger!.

 

In reply to this thread doing an injustice to the site. I was very happy to walk into Withams with a few thousand pounds and fetch one home. Now I am not so sure.

 

All I can say is that this has been an eye opener for me [an ignorant newbie] and Im sure several others watching.

 

Thanks to the members for the warning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But as I have said to you before, Low loaders are common and general road users know how they steer. Road users in general are not used to the back end of a tracked vehicle swinging out as the track rotates about the centre of contact. ( Not that an FV432 can Neutral steer, (am I correct?)) but there is an unexpected tendancy for the back of the track to move in the opposite direction to the turn. If meeting a turning FV432 or Passing one that is turning Left at a junction, there is an unpredicted movement that a general motorist does not expect. Fv432 is wide already, without this extra width being created by the swing.

 

On a low lowloader this are more predictable.

 

That part, at least, is easily resolved by carrying a warning sign in large letters on the rear of the vehicle similar to the

 

"Warning

Left hand Drive

No Hand Signals"

 

stencils on the back of WW2 US vehicles. Something along the lines of:

 

"Warning

Tracked Vehicle

Rear swings out on turning".

 

I've seen quite a few motorists caught out by steerable trailers too - despite these also carrying warning signs.

 

From memory - 432 are not neutral turn capable, I'm not even sure they can emulate the OT's ability to pivot on the centre of the inboard track. Open to correction here though?

Even a CVR(T) - indeed virtually every fully tracked vehicle will have the back swing out the opposite way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ALARP now that is a good one, But what happened to good old "Removing risk at source"?

 

Removing Risk at source should be the primary objective, and is always the best solution and all safety legislation puts this as the primary objective, anything short of Removing risk at source is a fudge.

 

There is a way to reduce the risk entirely. Don't drive unmodified FV432's on the road.

 

Hi Mike

 

Yep it is true that the better option would be not to drive unmodded on the road thus eliminating the risk, but the point is people have been doing it for years - is it really practical to assume that everyone out there who owns a 432 is suddenly going to stop driving on the road, and/ or modify their vehicles? I know you wouldnt do it (drive unmodded that is), and having read this thread I would certainly think very carefully about it. The army obviously decided to eliminate the risk completely but they have limitless resources relative to your average private owners.

 

Also once you come up with a mod that seems to work how do you know it will not have unintended consequences which will only show up with a very extensive testing regime of the type a private owner simply couldnt undertake. And finally even if there were a proven mod how do you know that it hs been done properly by a private owner. A well maintained standard vehicle may actually be safer than a poorly modified one. As has been pointed out earlier there will be many classic vehicles on the road today, some of which may have perceived inherent design faults (Fox or Mutt anyone..?). Are we simply going to modify all of them...? Not saying modification is a bad idea, just that there are other ways to improve safety....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if people really want to use the 43# series vehicles on the road, add a secondary brake system or even a different final drive unit off something else which does have them....

 

Why not cut the hull down lengthways and reduce the width to 2.55 yes I know it would be lots of work but could you loose the offending extra width by doing this and not affect much inside....

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few very good points there Timbo.

Thinking outside of military vehicles, I can think of quite a few classic cars that have renowned handling problems, would be considered downright dangerous these days and they're still on the road unmodified. I also see a lot of boy racer modified hot hatches with lowered suspension etc that likely handle worse than the original design yet these are still on the road.

 

Back to the FV 432 surely any modification to the braking and by default steering system would have to be VOSA inspected and approved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A few very good points there Timbo.

Thinking outside of military vehicles, I can think of quite a few classic cars that have renowned handling problems, would be considered downright dangerous these days and they're still on the road unmodified. I also see a lot of boy racer modified hot hatches with lowered suspension etc that likely handle worse than the original design yet these are still on the road.

 

Back to the FV 432 surely any modification to the braking and by default steering system would have to be VOSA inspected and approved.

Is there a system for VOSA to inspect and approve mods to vehicles?

There are countless performance (including brake and handling etc) mods on the market for every conceivable vehicle (well almost) and I doubt VOSA were involved with any of them. I would think the most awkward part of it would be corporate resposibility if it all went horribly wrong. Hence get any mod inspected by a chartered engineer and if your insurance company accepts it then all is good.

I of course retain the right to be wrong at all times!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
But as I have said to you before, Low loaders are common and general road users know how they steer. Road users in general are not used to the back end of a tracked vehicle swinging out as the track rotates about the centre of contact. ( Not that an FV432 can Neutral steer, (am I correct?)) but there is an unexpected tendancy for the back of the track to move in the opposite direction to the turn. If meeting a turning FV432 or Passing one that is turning Left at a junction, there is an unpredicted movement that a general motorist does not expect. Fv432 is wide already, without this extra width being created by the swing.

 

On a low lowloader this are more predictable.

 

I don't think most people driving normal cars have any idea what movement any other vehicle makes when turning. Low loaders will often move out to take a left hand turn, often this leaves enough space for the idiots to try and pass on the inside, and have their front end crushed as the truck turns.

 

Drawbar trailers with twin centre axles swing out at least as much as a tracked vehicle. The advantage of a 432 is that you don't just have a set of mirrors, but also have a commander, who should be watching both your rear and sides, watching for the unpredictables! A commander can not only tell the 432 driver what's going on around the vehicle through the intercom, but can also help indicate to other road users the intentions of the 432. Far better than any artic/low loader driver stuck 40' ahead in his cab!

 

Bearing in mind all track laying vehicles not in military service are limited to 20mph, that must slightly limit the potential disaster, although I'd suspect a Cent ARV running into anything at 20mph would not be pretty!

 

As mentioned in an earlier post, 432's in service have regular brake checks. There are also mandatory daily checks, such as track tension, overall track condition, condition of the drive sprockets, governor oil level, engine cut off pedal, tiller adjustment, in addition to all the normal levels, lights etc.

 

Jules

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think most people driving normal cars have any idea what movement any other vehicle makes when turning. Low loaders will often move out to take a left hand turn, often this leaves enough space for the idiots to try and pass on the inside, and have their front end crushed as the truck turns.

 

Drawbar trailers with twin centre axles swing out at least as much as a tracked vehicle. The advantage of a 432 is that you don't just have a set of mirrors, but also have a commander, who should be watching both your rear and sides, watching for the unpredictables! A commander can not only tell the 432 driver what's going on around the vehicle through the intercom, but can also help indicate to other road users the intentions of the 432. Far better than any artic/low loader driver stuck 40' ahead in his cab!

 

Bearing in mind all track laying vehicles not in military service are limited to 20mph, that must slightly limit the potential disaster, although I'd suspect a Cent ARV running into anything at 20mph would not be pretty!

 

As mentioned in an earlier post, 432's in service have regular brake checks. There are also mandatory daily checks, such as track tension, overall track condition, condition of the drive sprockets, governor oil level, engine cut off pedal, tiller adjustment, in addition to all the normal levels, lights etc.

 

Jules

 

Maybe 20mph is theoretical..Is it adhered to?...Have you seen the Sussex lanes/ Cent ARV vid?

 

Yes I know it was escorted, scouted etc, I have been told already how careful everybody was being, I din't need telling again......but.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe 20mph is theoretical..Is it adhered to?...Have you seen the Sussex lanes/ Cent ARV vid?

 

Yes I know it was escorted, scouted etc, I have been told already how careful everybody was being, I din't need telling again......but.....

 

With respect - anyone driving a large vehicle on the roads, be it tracked or not, should be driving withing the limits of the road AND the vehicles performance envelope. 20 mph might be the max permitted road speed for a fully tracked vehicle on resilient pads - but a country road is not the place to be doing it.

A nice, straight dual carriage way may well be OK for 20 mph but not a winding lane..

Dredging the memory back over the years - whenever I got to drive anything out of the ordinary, even with full escorts - then the more likely speed in such circumstances was 10 mph or less.

Whatever the arguments about width, braking system compliance etc. - all of these are redundant if the guy at the tillers is a complete berk as no matter how safe or compliant the vehicle is the driver is then the greatest risk imaginable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The advantage of a 432 is that you don't just have a set of mirrors, but also have a commander,

Jules

 

While a good idea, a commander is in no way a legal requirement for a private armour owner, nor are they "in command" of the vehicle. The driver is the person in charge of the vehicle brake. With a traction engine there is a steersman, but the driver is still the one in control of the vehicle. I would argue that some wheeled MVs have worse visibility than some tracked vehicles, and I see them regularly driving around with no "commander".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys

 

With respect I think we are getting off the original point of the thread a little, which was are 432's road legal or not ? Clearly if the person in charge of the vehicle is not driving responsibly, with a well maintained vehicle and a good sense of what can go wrong then that will be a potential problem, but surely that applies to ALL privately owned ex military vehicles, not just 432's, and dare I say it not just tracked vehicles.....

 

I dont know anybody who owns and drives a tracked vehicle on the road who does not take it seriously, maybe I'm just not in with the right (wrong!) crowd...

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
While a good idea, a commander is in no way a legal requirement for a private armour owner, nor are they "in command" of the vehicle. The driver is the person in charge of the vehicle brake. With a traction engine there is a steersman, but the driver is still the one in control of the vehicle. I would argue that some wheeled MVs have worse visibility than some tracked vehicles, and I see them regularly driving around with no "commander".

 

The advantage of a BMP-1/OT-90 there is you also get 2 more heads in the rear, one each corner plugged into the intercom system. Were one ever to be used on the road they would be able to tell following road users to keep clear when the vehicle turns or to avoid overtaking until the forward facing commander says the road ahead is clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...