One concern may be the legal pay load of the 74?
GB
GB
74 six seater
- Thread starter Kaoscruizer
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
crushers
post ho
well, the payload is 400(250)kg what ever that means, if it means the total weight it can carry is 250kg then Peter and i can not ride in the same truck...
if it means 400kg then it means me, Berni and a couple kids...
i have had 6 full grown big ass guys in old smokey and it was fine, maybe not legal but fine...
if it means 400kg then it means me, Berni and a couple kids...
i have had 6 full grown big ass guys in old smokey and it was fine, maybe not legal but fine...
crushers said:
Blah blah blah..........
statistics eh? well how about side seating 40.....probably make up less than .001% of the total NA fleet.....of course 96% of statictics are made up on the spot
No there is nothing saying you will be ripped in half in an accident. No I would not put a baby seat in there sideways....come on Greg!
You could probably hit a wreaker and remove all the 3point seat belts you could find. Weld an anchor point up high and also two down below.
Or just stick in a few lap belts. A lap belt will be 75% better than nothing, and 48% not as good a shoulder harness. And 63% not as good as a four point dune buggy harness. Oh not to forget 72% not as good as a five point racing harness. And 83% not as safe as driving a BJ60 to where you have to go.
Now don't get me wrong. The side seats are cool. Can I come for a ride?
I call shotgun!
crushers said:
Nope it is fact. Obviously people dont get ripped in half but they do suffer worse internal and spinal injuries through side mounted seats.
The local OH&S Dept here has reccomended that side seats in troopys be phased out in the workplace.
Some mining companies have already adopted it as policy causing forward facing seats to become expensive to procure while side facing seat are being dumped everywhere.
Im not saying I wouldnt own a vehicle with side facing seats. There are many other factors in vehicle accidents that are more likely to cause injury.
- Thread starter
- #25
I am just gonna buy one of those U.S. military weather balloons, load all my drunk buddies into the back, inflate it and squish them up against the windows till I get them home .. air bag deluxe!!
Gonna just go with lap belts .. I will try the wreckers this weekend.
I don't care what the stats are .. the seats are fricken sweet!! thanks again Wayne.
Gonna just go with lap belts .. I will try the wreckers this weekend.
I don't care what the stats are .. the seats are fricken sweet!! thanks again Wayne.
crushers
post ho
here are my states from experience of myself and friends.
head on collision in a 1976 FJ40 vs a Ford superduty at 80 km/hr.
damage:
ford wrote off
Land Cruiser had the winch pushed back into the rad and the frame was bent at about a 45 degree up on the front frame horns. the guys in the front were wearing seat belts, the guys in the back none. resulting bodily injuries were a broken arm, cuts and scratches.
roll over at 60 km/hr 1977 FJ40, no hard top or "cage":
damage: the hood was wrapped around the engine, the windshield was flattened as well as the roll bar.
4 passengers, all wearing seat belts.
injuries:
cuts and scratches, driver had a concussion.
head on with a tree, FJ40 40 km/hr.
bumper winch and grill shoved back in the shape of a "V" into the engine.
passengers 3 all wearing seat belts, injuries: bruising.
are rear side facing seats dangerous? sure, depending on the accident but then forward facing rear seats are dangerous as well.
do i recommend that everyone with a 70,73,74 rip out their back seats and put in side facing ones? no.
what i am saying is unless there are actual statistics that i can look up on the computer or that can be posted and verified then don't be judgemental of others and their practices.
why do i do this to my trucks? cause i like the looks and the ease of which the passengers can get in and out as well as the more usable space it creates.
cheers
head on collision in a 1976 FJ40 vs a Ford superduty at 80 km/hr.
damage:
ford wrote off
Land Cruiser had the winch pushed back into the rad and the frame was bent at about a 45 degree up on the front frame horns. the guys in the front were wearing seat belts, the guys in the back none. resulting bodily injuries were a broken arm, cuts and scratches.
roll over at 60 km/hr 1977 FJ40, no hard top or "cage":
damage: the hood was wrapped around the engine, the windshield was flattened as well as the roll bar.
4 passengers, all wearing seat belts.
injuries:
cuts and scratches, driver had a concussion.
head on with a tree, FJ40 40 km/hr.
bumper winch and grill shoved back in the shape of a "V" into the engine.
passengers 3 all wearing seat belts, injuries: bruising.
are rear side facing seats dangerous? sure, depending on the accident but then forward facing rear seats are dangerous as well.
do i recommend that everyone with a 70,73,74 rip out their back seats and put in side facing ones? no.
what i am saying is unless there are actual statistics that i can look up on the computer or that can be posted and verified then don't be judgemental of others and their practices.
why do i do this to my trucks? cause i like the looks and the ease of which the passengers can get in and out as well as the more usable space it creates.
cheers
Tapage
Club 4X4 Panamá
Gold Boy said:
just wondering ..
I'm 6.2" 180 lbs .. but my 80 is tight for me .. I can't imagine someone with 6.6" and 250 lbs inside ..
When all Japs brais was thinking in BJ-40 and family thought about long legs and big drivers .. ?
You asked for themcrushers said:
Wayne please understand that no one is accusing you of building something that is unsafe.Toyota,Landrover and others have been fitting side facing seat for years.However it is a proven fact that forward facing seats with the corect seatbelts greatly improve the occupants survival rates.
I would still own one but not for everyday family transport.
Off road I dont see a problem at all
Sideways facing seats are unsafe & should not be used to transport students under any circumstances
by Andrew Brookes
Background
Over the past two years I have been engaged in two overlapping research projects. One, an attempt to collate and analyse fatal accidents over the past 30 years on school camps and excursions in Australia, using information in the public domain (mainly newspaper reports and inquests). I have information on about 140 fatalities, and expect to have a series of papers ready for publication by the end of the year. Two, in a less formal project, I have been trying to understand some of the safety issues around travel to, from, and during outdoor education programs.
There are many issues which require discussion, including the effectiveness and appropriateness of the approaches and strategies adopted by the Road Traffic Authority and Department of Infrastructure (especially in attempting to manage school use of buses in the same way commercial use of buses is managed, without sufficient attention to the particulars of how schools are organised and how and why they use their own buses). However there is one issue which I feel outdoor educators should be aware of immediately.
Sideways facing seats
In the course of this work I decided to look into the safety of sideways facing seats, such as are fitted in troop carrier style vehicles, and in some mini buses as a way of fitting more passengers in less space.
I first contacted the Monash University Accident Research Centre, who advised me what research had been done in this area. What I learned was unambiguous: sideways-facing seats are unsafe. This is well known to accident researchers. In the early 1990s the collision of an army Land Rover Perentie at 45 km/hr killed 4 soldiers on sideways-facing bench seats in the rear. The army commissioned research to try to find a safe form of sideways seating (for example some form of adult baby capsule). Crash tests were conducted by Monash University using dummies belted into sideways seats.
The tests, with both lap and lap sash belts, established that there is the likelihood of life-threatening injuries in a 48 km/hr collision.
With lap sash belts
"The current Perentie 4x4 bench seat in combination with lap sash seat belts was ineffective in restraining occupants during the impact and in preventing the likelihood of life threatening head, neck, and chest injuries"
With lap belts
"The results of the test indicate that the system performed poorly when assessed with respect to occupant injuries. The system was ineffective in restraining occupants in position during impact and in preventing the likelihood of life threatening head, neck, and chest injuries" .
How does this compare with the safety of other vehicles, or for that matter with the safety of passengers sitting in the front seats facing forwards?
The Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) conducts tests not at 48 km/hr, but at 56 km/hr for a frontal impact, and 64 km/hr for the offset test. The NCAP rates the (test) crash safety of the 92-97 Toyota Land Cruiser (this is the most similar vehicle to a Troop Carrier tested), as marginal. However, this marginal safety for the front seat passengers is considerably better than the safety of passengers in sideways facing seat, even when the latter was measured in a collision at lower speed. How much less safe are the sideways facing seats in the back of a troop carrier than the "marginal" safety of the driver and passenger in the front? The table below gives an indication.
Test crash safety comparisons
Sideways seats, 48 km/hr frontal collision
3 dummies,
with (1) closest to front of vehicle and next to bulkhead
Front seat passenger, 56 km/hr frontal collision
Driver, 56 km/hr frontal collision
Chest acceleration. (90g = poor)
(1) 155.9g
(2) 112.8g
(3) not stated
37g
47g
HIC (head injury criterion) 1000 = 1 in 6 adults will suffer life-threatening brain injury. The higher the figure, the worse the result.
(1) 3599
(2) 2099
(3) not stated
699
1138
Overall risk of life-threatening injury
Likely
13%
34%
(Australian New Car Assessment Program)
Even at a relatively low speed collision, passengers in sideways facing seats in the rear of a troop carrier style vehicle are considerably more likely to be killed than the driver or passenger of a "marginal" vehicle in a higher speed collision.
This is what happened in the crash test (in the extract below, the term "Hybrid III" refers to the particular crash dummies used. The extract is from the test using dummies secured with lap belts).
The first Hybrid III slid laterally within the constraints of the seat belt and the shoulder contacted the - bulkhead at 40ms - the first Hybrid III’s upper torso was sandwiched with the pelvis moving forward - head and pelvis struck the - bulkhead generating a life-threatening resultant neck tension load of 4809N and a HIC of 3599. Considerable chest deflection was noted generating a life threatening resultant 3ms chest acceleration of 155.9g.
The authors go on to describe how the second dummy’s shoulder hit the shoulder of the first dummy, generating a 4299N neck tension load (life-threatening), chest acceleration of 112.8g (life-threatening) and HIC of 2099. The third dummy’s head hit the second dummies shoulder, breaking the clavicle, then the rebounding heads of the second and third dummies collided.
I believe that very few parents would approve of their children travelling in sideways facing seats if they knew how dangerous even a low speed frontal collision would be. I suspect that many children would themselves be reluctant to travel in such seats if they knew the facts and were given a choice.
Sideways facing seats are legal, simply because there is no Australian design rules provision for a sideways facing seat. . This legal loophole, or oversight, does not justify placing students’ lives at risk. Students should not be transported in sideways facing seats. This department introduced a policy of not transporting students in sideways facing seat immediately we became aware of the danger.
In summary, transporting students in sideways facing seats, with seat belts, entails the likelihood of life-threatening injuries in the event of a relatively low speed frontal collision.
This discussion does not exhaust the question of the crash safety of mini buses and troop carrier style vehicles. It should also be noted that rollovers were involved in about half of the motor vehicle fatalities I have found related to school or youth group camps or excursions. While rollovers contribute to around 20% of motor vehicle fatalities in Australia, in rural NT and WA the figure comes closer to 50% . Rollovers require a separate discussion, but it is worth noting that even without a load of students and without gear on a roof-rack, the Toyota Land Cruiser Troop Carrier 4X4, in tests conducted for the Victoria Police by Monash University, was measured to have a stability factor of 0.9, comparable to the controversial Holden Rodeo Divi Van. The "troopie" has a tilt table rollover angle of 39° , and a limit to sideways acceleration of 0.81 g (the Holden Commodore sedan figures are 52° and 1.28g respectively) . With packs on the roof and a load of students in the back it is my guess that the rollover risk of troop carrier style vehicles would be as unacceptable to most parents as the frontal collision risk would be.
My advice to programs which use vehicles with sideways facing seats is to cease using sideways facing seats to transport students immediately. Clearly there is work to be done in finding, and establishing the safety of alternatives (for example, Toyota have a 4x4 version of their extended bonnet Hiace available in some European markets). Perhaps some programs will have to be modified so that minibuses can be used. Lack of alternatives should not be used to justify continued use of a seating arrangement which is known to be unsafe.
Andrew Brookes is a senior lecturer in the Department of Outdoor Education and Nature Tourism at Latrobe University, Bendigo.
References cited
Richardson, S. A., Grzebieta, R. H., & Zou, R. (1999). Development of a side facing seat and seat belt system for the Australian Army Perentie 4X4. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 4(3), 239-259
Richardson, S. A., Rechnitzer, G., Grzebieta, R. H., & Hoareau, E. (2002). An advanced methodology for estimating vehicle rollover propensity: Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University Department of Civil Engineering
Last edited:
crushers
post ho
now that is cool reading, thanks for posting.
i can understand the testing for the troop carriers and the buses, the liability factory must be taken into consideration...
so what is the difference between the 13% and the 34%? is this front facing vs side facing seating or is it something else?
once again, is this an accurate test or is it a "prove this is the case" and they test specifically for these results? or was this an unbiased testing? Andrew states he studied 140 fatal accidents with side facing seating. did he also run analysis of front facing rear seating? and what percentages resulted?
once again thanks for posting...
i can understand the testing for the troop carriers and the buses, the liability factory must be taken into consideration...
so what is the difference between the 13% and the 34%? is this front facing vs side facing seating or is it something else?
once again, is this an accurate test or is it a "prove this is the case" and they test specifically for these results? or was this an unbiased testing? Andrew states he studied 140 fatal accidents with side facing seating. did he also run analysis of front facing rear seating? and what percentages resulted?
once again thanks for posting...
I only see the issue of a full head on collsion to be the worst with a side facing seat. I can envision the twisting that the body would do. A side t-bone type accident(depending on side to what passenger) might fair better??
I cannot imagine Wayne that you could find any statistics in Canada or the US for these seats. There just is not many vehicles in the whole fleet to get a sample from. There is no new vehicles with side seats or club seats in pickups on the market any more.. But maybe the oz guys can find something,. That article was good but I see your point, not real comparison info......the way I read it anyhow.
Now don't get me wrong. I like the seats and have always liked the look. I have been in a Landrover 110 with these seats and looked at them a little. I have never riden in a 40(in the back).
Thinking, I don't think 3 point would help either. As if you were sitting with the strap on your neck in the fwd direction, you head would be a leverage point instead of your shoulder.
At work I am subjected to safety videos on all kinds of things. Last week we had to watch one on what happens if just one passenger is not wearing his/her seatbelt. They showed a vary graphic video that had two couples in a car going down the highway. They get in a head on and then get rear ended. The non seat belted passenger flew forward and killed a passenger in the front, then as they got hit from behind, he flew backwards and killed the other passenger.
We routinely transport many guys in 7 pax Suburbans, so this video is to show the danger of not just the guy not wearing his seatbelt but also how he can kill you.
After seeing this video even my dog is wearing his seatbelt.
I cannot imagine Wayne that you could find any statistics in Canada or the US for these seats. There just is not many vehicles in the whole fleet to get a sample from. There is no new vehicles with side seats or club seats in pickups on the market any more.. But maybe the oz guys can find something,. That article was good but I see your point, not real comparison info......the way I read it anyhow.
Now don't get me wrong. I like the seats and have always liked the look. I have been in a Landrover 110 with these seats and looked at them a little. I have never riden in a 40(in the back).
Thinking, I don't think 3 point would help either. As if you were sitting with the strap on your neck in the fwd direction, you head would be a leverage point instead of your shoulder.
At work I am subjected to safety videos on all kinds of things. Last week we had to watch one on what happens if just one passenger is not wearing his/her seatbelt. They showed a vary graphic video that had two couples in a car going down the highway. They get in a head on and then get rear ended. The non seat belted passenger flew forward and killed a passenger in the front, then as they got hit from behind, he flew backwards and killed the other passenger.
We routinely transport many guys in 7 pax Suburbans, so this video is to show the danger of not just the guy not wearing his seatbelt but also how he can kill you.
After seeing this video even my dog is wearing his seatbelt.
lowenbrau
SILVER Star
Just to put the whole thing into a bit of perspective... JDM bj74s don't have any seatbelts in the back. Sideways jumpseats with belts have got to be better than that.
lowenbrau said:
This is true. I also believe much of the safety is about understanding your vehicles limitations and how you use it onroad.
Monash University in Australia have done some of the most exhaustive independant testing of 4wd drives accidents and compared them to overseas statistics.
Some of their findings are quite interesting such as this one that shows a troopy is more stable on road than some 2wds
NOTE : a Divivan is a van used by police for detaining suspects
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...roll+over+statistics&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=1
lowenbrau
SILVER Star
roscoFJ73 said:
You've got that right. I saw a statistic back when everybody was picking on the Suzukis for being a roll over risk. According to the report the veicle with the highest percentage of rollover deaths per vehicle built was....
Chevrolet Corvette
I love stats!
- Thread starter
- #34
wow!
Jeez .. I just wanted to show everyone my cool, new seats!! .. now I am afraid to let my dogs sit in them, let alone my drunk buddies!! LOL!!
All kidding aside, my profession is safety. I deal with risk analysis and management everyday. While appropriate safety equipment and procedures can and do save lives, applicable retrofit solutions for lap belts, shoulder straps, etc. for these seats are limited due to the design of the vehicle and the simple fact that when they were introduced, vehicle safety was in it's infancy stages.
The risks involved have been well documented in one form or another, and make no mistake, there are risks involved in using them whether on road or off. You cannot always prevent or eliminate a risk 100% of the time, but you can reduce that risk to a reasonable level that makes it acceptable (an individual or group must decide what is acceptable).
For me, once the lap belts are in, the risk is acceptable. Driving defensively, at reasonable speeds (again, practicability comes into play here) and deciding when to remove the occupants when the risk increases, is all part of the operator's responsibilities.
We all make decisions like this everyday .. at work and at home. The biggest factor is being aware of what can go wrong and doing your best to minimize the potential risks involved. That's my 2 cents ...
Jeez .. I just wanted to show everyone my cool, new seats!! .. now I am afraid to let my dogs sit in them, let alone my drunk buddies!! LOL!!
All kidding aside, my profession is safety. I deal with risk analysis and management everyday. While appropriate safety equipment and procedures can and do save lives, applicable retrofit solutions for lap belts, shoulder straps, etc. for these seats are limited due to the design of the vehicle and the simple fact that when they were introduced, vehicle safety was in it's infancy stages.
The risks involved have been well documented in one form or another, and make no mistake, there are risks involved in using them whether on road or off. You cannot always prevent or eliminate a risk 100% of the time, but you can reduce that risk to a reasonable level that makes it acceptable (an individual or group must decide what is acceptable).
For me, once the lap belts are in, the risk is acceptable. Driving defensively, at reasonable speeds (again, practicability comes into play here) and deciding when to remove the occupants when the risk increases, is all part of the operator's responsibilities.
We all make decisions like this everyday .. at work and at home. The biggest factor is being aware of what can go wrong and doing your best to minimize the potential risks involved. That's my 2 cents ...
Kaoscruizer said:For me, once the lap belts are in, the risk is acceptable. Driving defensively, at reasonable speeds (again, practicability comes into play here) and deciding when to remove the occupants when the risk increases, is all part of the operator's responsibilities.
We all make decisions like this everyday .. at work and at home. The biggest factor is being aware of what can go wrong and doing your best to minimize the potential risks involved. That's my 2 cents ...
Yeppers Dude! Preach it!....
GB
