[AT] ROPS

[charliehill]

If you are going to build your own roll bar and plan to have any hired help 
you better NOT call it a ROPS.  Put a canopy on it and call it a strong sun 
shade or something but DON'T call it a ROPS if you want to still own your 
land when the lawyers finish with you.  It might even be a good idea to put 
a sign on it that says this IS NOT  A ROPS.  You can't legally build a ROPS 
or even modify the one that came from the factory without submitting it to 
the testing labs for approval.

I'm not saying don't build one.  Just be careful what you call it.


Charlie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve W." <falcon at telenet.net>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [AT] ROPS


> Dennis Johnson wrote:
>> I agree with Dean that the only significant this is the height of the
>> center of gravity, and the width of the rear heels. The front only
>> comes into play only on a few extreeme circumstances such as dropping
>> the rear wheel in a hole or something like that. I have personally
>> done rollover testing of big trucks on tilt tables, and have also
>> designed rollover bars (Headache racks) for many truck. I have seen
>> some of these units tested when the trucks rolled over, and have seen
>> some fail, but still took enough energy to prevent killing or severly
>> huring the driver. The problem with most rollovers is it is rarely as
>> simple at the tilt table testing. Many times there are 2 or 3 factors
>> that add up to cause accidents.
>>
>>
>
> Very true. One of the things I like to do at race tracks is ask if the
> roll cage was actually engineered OR was it just "well we needed a
> couple hoops to pas the rule book" type stuff.
>
> It would be real easy to design a ROPS system if ALL it had to do is
> support the weight of a tractor. Now if you want it to support that
> tractor after it rolls over while traveling on a downhill slope and
> moving at 8mph at the time. That gets interesting.
>
> One of the new requirement for fire equipment starting this year is a
> built in roll protection system that is required to support the weight
> of the vehicle without failure. BUT the standard is written in a way
> that NO motion is included in it. The "test" the maker must pass is to
> flip the vehicle with a crane and show that the cab doesn't crush. I
> sent in a query about having the test be realistic and have the vehicle
> rolling at 45mph and flipping and see what the cabs do. The answer I got
> back was that my method was impractical!!!!!
> I guess they must see a lot of trucks just flipping over while parked....
>
> -- 
> Steve W.
> (\___/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.14710)
> http://www.pctools.com/
> ======= 





=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.14710)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======