question RB44 - under run bars

[Cornishbloke]

Hi

 

Just bought an RB44 from Withams. I've contacted someone about getting the thing through the HGV test and they maintain that it must be fitted with side bars. I've not seen any pictures of registered ones with these. Does anyone have recent experience of this and if they are not required could you point me in the direction of the relevant legislation.

 

The chap who's doing it sounds like he is aware of all the current regs so I don't think its flannel.

 

Richard

[volvoc303]

have plated three so far at lancing test station no under run bars fitted all three had problerns with brake readings had to tie load valve up and head light adjustments

[redneck]

No problems with mine a couple of months ago either.

The drop plate on the rear is pretty effective for an under run bar, as long as the rear over hang is less than 400mm it shouldn't be a problem.

I think this is the Northern Ireland spec but I think the English one is similar http://www.dvlni.gov.uk/Freedom%20of%20Information/Heavy%20Vehicle%20Inspection%20Manual/Sideguards.pdf

 

and another http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/underrun.html#reg49

 

Also note the 550mm max height of the side bar, you may find the side boxes etc are around this height, depending on how they are fitted.

[Cornishbloke]

Well - I contacted VOSA technical officers and their response is as follows:"An RB44 would be exempt fitment of sideguards in military use as the Construction and Use regulations allow that. In civilian use they are not exempt unless the distance between the axle centres is less than 3m. I estimate the distance on an RB44 is close to 4m so I think it should have them retrofitted. It sounds as if some people have got away with it."An interesting development. Now I suppose we have to work out how to fit them.I'll let you know how I get on.Richard

[Paul Dodd]

When you are considering lateral protection (Sidebars) any existing bodywork and or equipment such as fuel tanks, lockers etc can be taken into consideration, so long as it meets the general requirements of the directive.

[Cornishbloke]

Thanks for that Paul. The issue isn't made any easier by inconsistencies within VOSA centres as evidenced by the posts here. My worry is that I will be looking over my shoulder at each test in case either the regs have changed or the examiner doesn't like the mod.

I can see there being a gap in the restoration timeline covering the 80's / 90's and MKs and Dafs being scrapped as too expensive to put on the road just as a hobby. It's ironic that my Scorpion costs me nothing to tax and requires no testing of any sort whereas the RB44 is regulated to the eyes.It will be interesting to see what the preservation scene looks like in twenty years time.

[scruffyHerrbert]

spare wheel should be effective on one side

 

good luck with it Richard, no mention at Lancing in Feb., paul

 

volvoc, where are you based? we might almost be neighbours

[Paul Dodd]

spare wheel should be effective on one side

 

good luck with it Richard, no mention at Lancing in Feb., paul

 

volvoc, where are you based? we might almost be neighbours

 

Not wanting to appear un-neighbourly , but I am in Grantham, Lincolnshire

[Paul Dodd]

Thanks for that Paul. The issue isn't made any easier by inconsistencies within VOSA centres as evidenced by the posts here. My worry is that I will be looking over my shoulder at each test in case either the regs have changed or the examiner doesn't like the mod.

I can see there being a gap in the restoration timeline covering the 80's / 90's and MKs and Dafs being scrapped as too expensive to put on the road just as a hobby. It's ironic that my Scorpion costs me nothing to tax and requires no testing of any sort whereas the RB44 is regulated to the eyes.It will be interesting to see what the preservation scene looks like in twenty years time.

 

I don,t know much about these vehicles, but the starting point must be to determine what vehicle category they fall into. Goods vehicles are known as Category N

 

N1 > 3500 Max Authorised MAss

N2 > 3500 > 12000kg

N3 > 1200 >

 

A quick "Google" shows the weight of this vehicle as 3050kg, if this is the MAM it should be N1 and I think I am correct in saying that the N1 category does not require Lateral protection. If it is not and it can carry a load greater than 450kg pushing it above 3500Kg then it will be N2 and it does need them. However having said that, certain body characteristics can be taken into account, and also access provisions for things like the spare can also affect how the regulation is interpreted. The regulation is 89/297/EEC you can get a copy easily enough (or I can send you one), my advice would be , take a good look at your vehicle alongside the regs, and prepare a good argument to put to the VOSA technical guys, once you have it writing what you can or cant do, compliance and future testing is pretty straightforward

[redneck]

N2, My tilt bed was 3934kg unladen, Gross vehicle weight 5300kg, not quite sure how that works out to be a supposed 2200kg load capacity??? my tool box isn't that heavy.

[Cornishbloke]

That's interesting Paul. It's definitely N2 - the 3000kg figure is the empty weight. Mine has a radio body which is probably the best part of 1000kg.

To my untrained eye, there goes not appear to be that much clearance under the sides. The lower bodywork ( fuel tank, lockers, spare wheel etc.) ends in a line roughly level with the hubs. The side height above the road is therefore about 8 inches plus a tyre. I missed a trick in not measuring the height last weekend when I saw it, but again it does not look that high compared with N3 types. Driving up the motorway today there didn't seem to be much difference between the RB44 and a chassis transit apart from the weight.

I'm between camps here, I have an email from VOSA which says bars, and the chap who will take it for its first test says bars, but experience on the site is that bars are not being insisted upon by other centres.

Any ideas what will persuade VOSA that bars are not necessary - it seems to me that only an argument on the construction will win - weight and wheelbase are non starters.

 

Richard

[Paul Dodd]

That's interesting Paul. It's definitely N2 - the 3000kg figure is the empty weight. Mine has a radio body which is probably the best part of 1000kg.

To my untrained eye, there goes not appear to be that much clearance under the sides. The lower bodywork ( fuel tank, lockers, spare wheel etc.) ends in a line roughly level with the hubs. The side height above the road is therefore about 8 inches plus a tyre. I missed a trick in not measuring the height last weekend when I saw it, but again it does not look that high compared with N3 types. Driving up the motorway today there didn't seem to be much difference between the RB44 and a chassis transit apart from the weight.

I'm between camps here, I have an email from VOSA which says bars, and the chap who will take it for its first test says bars, but experience on the site is that bars are not being insisted upon by other centres.

Any ideas what will persuade VOSA that bars are not necessary - it seems to me that only an argument on the construction will win - weight and wheelbase are non starters.

 

Richard

 

Its always going to be a difficult one to win, as the tendency is to err on the side of safety (why wouldnt they), so as an N2 you left being able to argue that the fittings and body work fulfil the requirements of the directive or exclude its need. Best thing is to read the directive ( go to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/directives/directive-89-297-eec_en.htm) and get a tape rule out and see what could comply and what does not. For example if your radio body is demountable and has retractable legs, side protection cant be fitted around them etc etc, similarly access to the spare wheel. You may need to be creative but fitting an additional locker to the side may avoid the need to fit guards so long as the "bodywork" fulfils the requirement of the directive.

[Paul Dodd]

Its always going to be a difficult one to win, as the tendency is to err on the side of safety (why wouldnt they), so as an N2 you left being able to argue that the fittings and body work fulfil the requirements of the directive or exclude its need. Best thing is to read the directive ( go to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/directives/directive-89-297-eec_en.htm) and get a tape rule out and see what could comply and what does not. For example if your radio body is demountable and has retractable legs, side protection cant be fitted around them etc etc, similarly access to the spare wheel. You may need to be creative but fitting an additional locker to the side may avoid the need to fit guards so long as the "bodywork" fulfils the requirement of the directive.

 

Just by way of coincidence this was working outside my office today. The spare wheel carrier has been replaced with a locker which has virtually the same effect as the lateral protection (remember its not there for impact damage its supposed to deflect cyclists etc from going under the rear wheels.) And on the Offside the fuel tank with minimal additions would also be close to covering it. This vehicle has a VOSA test certificate although it is voluntary as working in forestry it is classed as an Ag vehicle and is tax exempt etc.

Oh, and another thing although it may not suit your rig, Vehicles that tip to the Side or Rear are exempted from the side and rear protection.

[downforce]

That's interesting Paul. It's definitely N2 - the 3000kg figure is the empty weight. Mine has a radio body which is probably the best part of 1000kg.

To my untrained eye, there goes not appear to be that much clearance under the sides. The lower bodywork ( fuel tank, lockers, spare wheel etc.) ends in a line roughly level with the hubs. The side height above the road is therefore about 8 inches plus a tyre. I missed a trick in not measuring the height last weekend when I saw it, but again it does not look that high compared with N3 types. Driving up the motorway today there didn't seem to be much difference between the RB44 and a chassis transit apart from the weight.

I'm between camps here, I have an email from VOSA which says bars, and the chap who will take it for its first test says bars, but experience on the site is that bars are not being insisted upon by other centres.

Any ideas what will persuade VOSA that bars are not necessary - it seems to me that only an argument on the construction will win - weight and wheelbase are non starters.

 

Richard

 

I read the regs and there are several exceptions - one is where the "bodywork effectively performs the same function" or something similar wording - and also (see yellow one) tippers and tankers are exempt or only required as far as practical.

 

The wheelbase is about 3.25m centre to centre so a bit to big to scrape by that avenue.

 

Also someone else said PHGVs don't require Tacho and/or underrun protection.

 

I wanted to propose a cattle prod to hasten the cyclist or pedestrian away from the side of the vehicle but apparently this is only permitted in RSA and movies!

 

I actually considered mounting sand-ladders/waffleboards where the side bars would be - seemed like a good idea but needs to be done carefully to leave a flat surface (no sticky out wing nuts allowed). Useful to me going overlanding but i appreciate you don't always need them in Chelsea ! - Well actually today maybe you do!

 

In the meantime can anyone tell me what the small circular electrical connector on the wiring loom that runs down the chassis leg behind the cab (LHS) sort of above the spare wheel goes to?

 

DF