Fair enough except unlike you I do feel you can get aftermarket seating that is just as safe as factory seats that meet all applicable FMVSS requirements. Look at THIS SITE in the comments below the seat belt portion as an example. HERE is another and look at the info at the bottom of the page.
Larry
Lets read the sites in detail:
www.imageseating.com/
Here is how you recognize a scam:
There is a statement (written in a graphic so you cannot easily cut and paste it).
It says,
".... (Belts) fully certified to FMVSS 209"
What is FMVSS 209?
Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses (Effective 3-1-67)
BUT WHAT ABOUT FMVSS 210?
Quote: Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages - Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68 ), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses (Effective 7-1-71)
This standard establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to ensure proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of failure. The requirements apply to any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure.
The vendor is distinctly silent on this issue.
The most critical part of the standard --- seat belt attachment --- is not claimed or certified.
In fact, how can a maker of hardware do that certification?
No way! Only a complete vehicle manufacturer or a certified modder can do that.
Devil in the details...
-------------------
What about the next statement of about FMVSS:
Again -- this is done in a graphic, to prevent easy cut and paste:
There are NO FMVSS codes applicable that a seat manufacturer has to meet.
That is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer.
Therefore, that statement means ZILCH.
Specifically, it is the OEM (e.g. Ford or GM) that has to meet this:
Quote: Standard No. 207 - Seating Systems - Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses (Effective 1-1-72)
This standard establishes requirements for seats, attachment assemblies, and installation, to minimize the possibility of failure as a result of forces acting on the seat in vehicle impact.
Disingenious, isn't it!
It is perfectly legal to install non-compliant seats in the vehicle, e.g. wrap around sofas, fold away beds, etc. as long as there is no claim that those seats are useable for passenger use and is in compliance with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, 210 (and everything else applicable) etc.
Even wonder why RVs come with no seat belts for many seats?
Because it was certificated only for the ones that come from the complete vehicle manufacturer with seat belts!
Therefore, based on the information you gave me --- there is not any reason for me to suggest that these seats and so on are FMVSS compliant.
They are not --- not unless it is certificated as a complete system, with seat, restraints, anchorages, and specifically --- head injury spelled out here:
Quote: Standard No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact
This standard specifies performance requirements to provide head impact protection for occupants.
Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68); Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less (Effective 9-1-81)
Shall meet requirements for instrument panels, seat backs, sun visors, and arm rests. interior compartment doors are required to remain closed during a crash.
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, and Trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less, and Buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 3,860 kg (8,510 lbs.) or less (Effective 9-18-95)
Shall meet phase-in requirements for vehicle upper interior components, including, but not limited to, pillars, side rails, roof headers and the roof.
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less, and Buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 3,860 kg (8,510 lbs.) or less (Effective 9-1-98)
Optional requirements for dynamically deploying upper interior head protection systems providing head injury protection in lateral crashes.
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less, and Buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 3,860 kg (8,510 lbs.) or less (Effective 9-1-2000)
All shall meet upper interior head protection criteria.
That means designing what materials might one hit their head on in a crash...
Only a complete vehicle manufacturer can do that... and sign off on the certification to DOT.
True quality aftermarket modders (e.g. the ones that does the Enterprise commuter van conversions mentioned above) can do that.
Not many others.
O.K. I didn't explore every aspect and the second link has FMVSS MOUNTING brackets and HERE you can get all the FMVSS mounts and there are FMVSS certified seats out their with integrated shoulder/lap seatbelts. I can appreciate your desire to have everything FMVSS, but as you have admitted there are probably some conversion vans carrying thousand of families safely even w/o the strick FMVSS compliance. It is a risk assessment one has to make for themselves.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this aspect.
A reasonably older vehicle in good mechanical condition with reasonably low miles is every bit as good as a newer vehicle.
I see no reason why he has to spend $5K-10K more for a newer vehicle than he can afford, just to have one with a later manufacturing year printed on the title. Also consider all the resulting higher registration and insurance costs to go with the newer model year vehicle.
He can look carefully and find a nice older vehicle that is just as capable of doing the job reliably, at much lesser purchase cost and lower overall cost of ownership, not to mention a less rapid depreciation rate, if he decides to sell it in a couple years for whatever reason.
As a smart business owner, and a good steward of his family's financial health, he would be well advised to incur as little debt as possible to accomplish his goals. An unnecessarily new and expensive vehicle and resultant higher debt to income ratio doesn't help his financial situation any.
He's doing all this while banking on a record breaking year. However, if that doesn't end up panning out, he will be left with a big nut to crack every month, possibly without the income he was expecting to cover it with. A smart business man doesn't stick his neck out too far, lest the head be chopped off. Some risk is good, but limiting liabilities and carefully and conservatively calculating the risk is a good path to take.
* This post was
edited 04/08/12 03:43am by SoCalDesertRider *
Skip the trailer and do hotels for the rest of season.
Patch yours up to last to Oct Nov.
That is a new model year, pass van auctions are at seasonal low in Nov. Dec.
Buy in Dec. Jan, latest Feb before travel season.
You now know a lot more, and can accumulate the cash.
Yeah but the larger goal its spending time with my wife and kids building memories. Hotels will not be as fun and cost more in the end, especially if upping size of room or choosing a hotel more family friendly then I would for just me.
Its a min of four Weeks with them on the road with me, with many days off. They are looking forward to it. The economy hit my biz good, now I'm recovering. Over the past few years we've refrained to cost effective fun, only vacationing short trips when I get a non local gig some where with kid stuff to do.
When they start up for school next year I got more work booked out of town then any previous year, I'll be gone weeks at a time.
I want the time with them and believe we'll loose allot of fun without a travel trailer... So to me its worth getting into less of a vehicle now, to make sure I can pull that trailer rather than wait till I can afford a better vehicle.
Plus I've already wrote off current van and my mechanic says get a new one. Im ready to dump it, not worth fixing, to many things wrong and I'm not a mechanic of that level.
Yeah but the larger goal its spending time with my wife and kids building memories. Hotels will not be as fun and cost more in the end, especially if upping size of room or choosing a hotel more family friendly then I would for just me.
Its a min of four Weeks with them on the road with me, with many days off. They are looking forward to it. The economy hit my biz good, now I'm recovering. Over the past few years we've refrained to cost effective fun, only vacationing short trips when I get a non local gig some where with kid stuff to do.
When they start up for school next year I got more work booked out of town then any previous year, I'll be gone weeks at a time.
I want the time with them and believe we'll loose allot of fun without a travel trailer... So to me its worth getting into less of a vehicle now, to make sure I can pull that trailer rather than wait till I can afford a better vehicle.
Plus I've already wrote off current van and my mechanic says get a new one. Im ready to dump it, not worth fixing, to many things wrong and I'm not a mechanic of that level.
Bite the bullet.
Buy the 350 you can afford.
Pay $20,000 TO $25,000 for a late model GM (2010 onwards, 1 year of warranty left)
or
Pay $17,000 to $20,000 for a late model Ford (2011 or 12, 1 year of warranty left.
You can't afford an older vehicle traveling with family, kids and instruments.
If you are stranded.. that gets to be a huge mess.
NewsW wrote: A compelling argument to get a 1 year old Ford extended... with little or no debt.
Then use hotels (variable cost only when he is actually making money) rather than trailer (fixed cost plus maintenance).
An older vehicle introduces uncertainty, and the possibility of unexpected breakdown (very expensive in both cost and lost revenues).
On the expense side, a simple breakdown on side of road is $500 or more. Revenue side, a lot if a gig is missed.
Best to get a known good vehicle (newer) under warranty, and then see how its reliability is over the next year.
No amount of due diligence can uncover a lemon all the time.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with you but new doesn't insure reliability or unexpected breakdowns. It does insure higher cost via payment or cash outlay and a certain "peace of mind" that comes with a warranty. (I overcome this by saying to myself if my motor goes, it is only about 2-3 new truck payments from being back on the road and most of the little things I can fix on my own.)
My co-worker has a brand new Camaro with 1200 miles on it, and 1 payment made. It is in the shop, been there for two weeks, waiting on parts.
Thanks!
Jeremiah
TT: 1995 Layton 2910
Tow Vehicle: 1999 F-350, v10, 2wd, Crew Cab, Dually
Hitch: Draw-Tite Trunnion WD Hitch
Sway Control: Valley dual friction sway control
Brake Control: Tekonsha Voyager
"It's Kind of Fun To Do The Impossible"
~Walt Disney~
I 2x this. An older vehicle can be brought up to road worthy status often times waaaay cheaper than newer. There are certain wearable components that have to be checked/replaced in the cooling, braking, suspension systems that are normally specified in the vehicles preventative maintenance plan. This can often be done at a fraction of newer.
I have used a TV with 80K miles still under warranty and a TV with over 200K miles with the same comfort and security taking my family out and it all came down to quality inspection and maintenance done before the trip. But as one pointed out any vehicle can have a failure so having a cell phone, good tow service plan and a couple nights hotel fees/rental car fees in bank will mitigate a lot of the risk of being stranded for long. I put about 7K-9K on my trailer and never had a road side break down.
For a business plan without guarantees I would find the balance between newness and affordability. I for one would not sink a lot of money into a TV/TT. As a matter of fact for the combined cost of TV/TT I would get a good used motorhome (Class C) and clear out the back queen and use that for storage and sleep in the overhand and let the kids sleep on the fold out couch and converted dinette table. And for transportation on site maybe get a small motorcycle or again rent a car.
SoCalDesertRider wrote: A reasonably older vehicle in good mechanical condition with reasonably low miles is every bit as good as a newer vehicle.
I see no reason why he has to spend $5K-10K more for a newer vehicle than he can afford, just to have one with a later manufacturing year printed on the title. Also consider all the resulting higher registration and insurance costs to go with the newer model year vehicle.
He can look carefully and find a nice older vehicle that is just as capable of doing the job reliably, at much lesser purchase cost and lower overall cost of ownership, not to mention a less rapid depreciation rate, if he decides to sell it in a couple years for whatever reason.
As a smart business owner, and a good steward of his family's financial health, he would be well advised to incur as little debt as possible to accomplish his goals. An unnecessarily new and expensive vehicle and resultant higher debt to income ratio doesn't help his financial situation any.
He's doing all this while banking on a record breaking year. However, if that doesn't end up panning out, he will be left with a big nut to crack every month, possibly without the income he was expecting to cover it with. A smart business man doesn't stick his neck out too far, lest the head be chopped off. Some risk is good, but limiting liabilities and carefully and conservatively calculating the risk is a good path to take.
Offline
