I’ve come across a problem that concerns me greatly it is to do with 6 seatbelt motorhomes

[Mikecarruthers]

Are you supposed to travel with the table in place? Most makers advice against.

I'm confused, are you concerned with the seatbelt anchorage itself. Or the lack of super-structure to stop the rear facing seats going forward in a front-on collision

There is no such provisos in the manual in the Autotrail requesting that you don’t travel with the table I place as for confusion if you took the time to look at the pictures I have posted it would be self evident what I am complaining about or are you just being argumentative

 

[Mikecarruthers]

Will the seat in front not be what actually takes the load?

The seat in front has its own problems to contend with in the case of a forward accident as far as I’m concerned you wouldn’t allow the rear passengers in your car to travel unsecured with a seat belt designed to work in a forward fashion otherwise not only do you get hit from the front but also from behind as well

 

[Jim]

There is no such provisos in the manual in the Autotrail requesting that you don’t travel with the table I place as for confusion if you took the time to look at the pictures I have posted it would be self evident what I am complaining about or are you just being argumentative

If I wasn't confused, I wouldn't have asked for clarification, but no worries you seemed to have it all worked out. I'll go and pick an argument somewhere else

 

[ontheroadagain]

Even if you got this problem resolved unfortunately a motorhome is not the best vehicle to have an accident in. Cookers, fridges, microwaves etc all held in place with a few wood screws. Jim mentioned removing the table when travelling. Our table is very heavy but it has to remain in place as there is nowhere else to store it. The rail that supports it is also screwed to the wall with guess what - a few wood screws! I am not saying that your seat is acceptable, just pointing out that there are lots of other safety issues in a motorhome.

 

[CazPaul]

I’ve checked ours really substantial steel frame securing the rear seatbelts.

Surely you will get somewhere with just little screws, they shouldn’t have fitted rear belts in that case. Either do it right or not at all.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

I’ve checked ours really substantial steel frame securing the rear seatbelts.

I'm not sure if he's talking about the actual anchorage of the belts or the lack of super-structure between the seats, but don't ask, he seems a bit irritable at the moment.

 

[bigtwin]

next step is to employ the services of motor engineer

Not sure what you mean by this but make sure it isn’t a trades person - they are not qualified to assist you.

the next course of action is a independent assessment from a firm of qualified engineers

Make sure, whoever you engage, that they are chartered.

Ian

 

[Just smiffy]

If I wasn't confused, I wouldn't have asked for clarification, but no worries you seemed to have it all worked out. I'll go and pick an argument somewhere else

Don’t look at me….

 

[Just smiffy]

As the old saying goes… “buyer beware”…

 

[Mikecarruthers]

I'm not sure if he's talking about the actual anchorage of the belts or the lack of super-structure between the seats, but don't ask, he seems bit irritable at the moment.

Hi I’m not irritable there is a frame fitted in mine and it is substantial but it’s for a forward facing seat there’s no structure to support the part that your back leans on the frame in mine has no support for the top half of your body

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[poppycamper]

I think the issue here is....
In a forward facing seat the seat belt secures the passenger from moving forward.... the back of seat is incidental
However in a rear facing seat the body is effectively throw away from the belt and the seat back becomes the main load bearing part...
So yes I can see OP's concern.. the seat should be designed and securely fitted to chassis with intregal back rest enabled to take the weight of passenger being thrown forwards and there into seat.

 

[CazPaul]

I’m not sure what is safe and what is not, I’ve just been into the garage to look at ours, some photos not loading. Forward facing seats.
We have steel support frame that you sit on and steel pillars up the sides, is this set up safe, never been used since we had the van.

 

[Terry]

As I pointed out in my last post ——At present time there is NO requirement for rear facing seats to have belts or even side seats for that matter! As such the fact that AT have fitted belts to the rear facing seats I would say is a bonus to be used simply to hold kids in place and stop them wondering around. Are any kids under 12 ? If so does mum sit in the back giving front seat to under 12? That should happen but I doubt many do it.
I’m out of here because this is a argument for the sake of argument I have already said what the “law/recommendations “is so until there is a change to that and all abide by it it’s a nonsense to argue.

 

[poppycamper]

I’m out of here because this is a argument for the sake of argument I have already said what the “law/recommendations “is so until there is a change to that and all abide by it it’s a nonsense to argue.

Not very helpful to OP Terry
Yes we have all heard your statements (prural) about belts not required but the OP as stated has them fitted and his concerns are not about whether or not the belt or indeed how it is mounted is fitted BUT will the rear of seat support anyone in that seat in a frontal crash.
So IMV your points are what are causing any arguements.... not that I have seen any

 

[DBK]

I have a Autotrail Apache 700 2019 it has 6 seat belts fitted to it I don’t have a problem with the forward facing seats as they at fitted correctly and conform to all regulations the issue I have is with the rear facing belts these are fitted with a forward facing seatbelt tower Not designed for rear facing seats it seems that there is no regulation regarding these ,on the Apache there is a back rest which forms part of the seat which is basically a piece of covered ply mine is secured with just two screws in the event of a forward impact if the person or persons are sitting in those seats and are weighing 80 kilograms each that at 50 miles an hour equates to a force of 9 tonnes each person 18 tonnes in total which 2 wood screws and a piece of plywood had got to secure if find this very disturbing Autotrail View attachment 687493

I found this photograph on the web and I think it makes it a bit easier to see what the potential problem is.

It looks as if the seat backs are just fixed to the sheet of plywood between the seats and driver's seat.

What happens if you press against the top of the outer seat, does it move much? Can you push the plywood back and if you can do the seats stay in place or move with it?

If there is no steel frame supporting the back of the seats then they will provide no protection in an accident but I don't think anyone can jump to conclusions about this without a bit more investigation.

Can you see how the seat belts between the seats are fixed? What can you see if you look into the opening they appear from? Can you see any metal tubes? I know this is not an issue about seat belts but working out how they are secured may give a clue to how the seat backs are supported.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gellyneck]

I think the issue here is....
In a forward facing seat the seat belt secures the passenger from moving forward.... the back of seat is incidental
However in a rear facing seat the body is effectively throw away from the belt and the seat back becomes the main load bearing part...
So yes I can see OP's concern.. the seat should be designed and securely fitted to chassis with intregal back rest enabled to take the weight of passenger being thrown forwards and there into seat.

....... BUT will the rear of seat support anyone in that seat in a frontal crash.

That would be my take on the OP's concern.

This is the structure / seatbelt anchorage of the rear, but forward facing, seats in out AT Frontier.

I would have thought there would have to be a similar support, but with additional components across the back of the seat backs, to properly secure the occupants of the rearward facing seats.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

I have a Autotrail Apache 700 2019 it has 6 seat belts fitted to it I don’t have a problem with the forward facing seats as they at fitted correctly and conform to all regulations the issue I have is with the rear facing belts these are fitted with a forward facing seatbelt tower Not designed for rear facing seats it seems that there is no regulation regarding these ,on the Apache there is a back rest which forms part of the seat which is basically a piece of covered ply mine is secured with just two screws in the event of a forward impact if the person or persons are sitting in those seats and are weighing 80 kilograms each that at 50 miles an hour equates to a force of 9 tonnes each person 18 tonnes in total which 2 wood screws and a piece of plywood had got to secure if find this very disturbing Autotrail View attachment 687493

If they are regular inertia seatbelts, they won't latch in a forward impact, as they are facing the backwards, so won't do anything.
But the force of the occupant will be in to the seat, not the belt. In that case that thin ply will just smash. Then the restraint is being done by the forward facing seat. That doesn't seem good at all.
Is the forward facing seat rigid, or does it fold forward and back? If it does then the occupant in that seat would be in danger from the rear facing passenger pushing into it in that scenario.
Hopefully they have covered these eventualities and can answer your questions.


Edit:
Just seen your other post and picture.
Not good. The rear passenger will end up pushing into the drivers seat back.
Needs looking at by the manufacturer's.
I don't think that's safe.

 

[poppycamper]

Yep exactly what I said in #41

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

On this vehicle there is no metal support frame the only means of attachment for the seat back which appears to be ply is two 25mm wood screws I have spoken to Autotrail about this there response was I had to take a day of work so I could travel one hour 30 minutes back to the dealership where they would come and look when I said I couldn’t done that on that day they said I was uncooperative even though they had seen the photographs and the dealers have inspected the vehicle they said and I quote we are confident with the design of our furniture when I pointed out that two wood screws into a piece of plywood was not enough to hold 18 tonnes of force they have not been in touch since I spoke to the design manufacturer for the seatbelt frame they refused to comment or give details and reference my back to Autotrail I have tried to speak with caravans and motorhome council over this and they have not returned any correspondence I have spoken to DVSA they have told me to file a dangerous vehicle complaint which I’m doing at this moment the next course of action is a independent assessment from a firm of qualified engineers and also to raise the issue with the insurance companies to see what happens

If the rear facing seats only have that plywood, then it's clearly not fit for purpose. In my opinion.
If the incident where you had to brake hard broke it, then this shows it isn't.

I did our PVC on a Boxer. Our rear facing seat is built on a welded 5mm steel angle framework, bolted through to the chassis members. The seatbelts are bolted with 5mm backing plates.
That's on a 'DIY' job.

 

[Mikecarruthers]

This is the framework this is a forward facing frame work if you google the manufacture and look at the numbers that will confirm what I’m saying I also noticed that the only concern from some is that it might have devalued your motor home but what price do you put on someone’s life if you are aware of the issues you can work for a resolution if you want to play ostrich then get on with it but I for one won’t accept it the manufacturer has a legal responsibility it shouldn’t matter if it’s new or 10 years old they have the same requirements one of the main reasons for raising this on here is just that you are aware there could be a problem some of you have been to look already if the back of the seat is not attached to the frame then you like me have a problem

I think the issue here is....
In a forward facing seat the seat belt secures the passenger from moving forward.... the back of seat is incidental
However in a rear facing seat the body is effectively throw away from the belt and the seat back becomes the main load bearing part...
So yes I can see OP's concern.. the seat should be designed and securely fitted to chassis with intregal back rest enabled to take the weight of passenger being thrown forwards and there into seat.

you have it in one the force of a 80 kg person in a impact is equivalent to 9 tonnes forward or to the front of the vehicle two wood screws and a piece of ply won’t do it for me if you have two people that 18 tonnes that’s four and a half time the weight of my motorhome

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Mikecarruthers]

If the rear facing seats only have that plywood, then it's clearly not fit for purpose. In my opinion.
If the incident where you had to brake hard broke it, then this shows it isn't.

I did our PVC on a Boxer. Our rear facing seat is built on a welded 5mm steel angle framework, bolted through to the chassis members. The seatbelts are bolted with 5mm backing plates.
That's on a 'DIY' job.

That’s 100% better than the one I have

 

[Mikecarruthers]

If they are regular inertia seatbelts, they won't latch in a forward impact, as they are facing the backwards, so won't do anything.
But the force of the occupant will be in to the seat, not the belt. In that case that thin ply will just smash. Then the restraint is being done by the forward facing seat. That doesn't seem good at all.
Is the forward facing seat rigid, or does it fold forward and back? If it does then the occupant in that seat would be in danger from the rear facing passenger pushing into it in that scenario.
Hopefully they have covered these eventualities and can answer your questions.


Edit:
Just seen your other post and picture.
Not good. The rear passenger will end up pushing into the drivers seat back.
Needs looking at by the manufacturer's.
I don't think that's safe.

I know which is why I am shouting about it if I didn’t I could not live with my self knowing I haven’t done all that I can I’m not after compensation I don’t want to get rid of my motorhome I just want a fix and the manufacturer is responsible in my eyes

 

[Mikecarruthers]

I found this photograph on the web and I think it makes it a bit easier to see what the potential problem is.

View attachment 687672

It looks as if the seat backs are just fixed to the sheet of plywood between the seats and driver's seat.

What happens if you press against the top of the outer seat, does it move much? Can you push the plywood back and if you can do the seats stay in place or move with it?

If there is no steel frame supporting the back of the seats then they will provide no protection in an accident but I don't think anyone can jump to conclusions about this without a bit more investigation.

Can you see how the seat belts between the seats are fixed? What can you see if you look into the opening they appear from? Can you see any metal tubes? I know this is not an issue about seat belts but working out how they are secured may give a clue to how the seat backs are supported.

There Is not any supports it just a forward facing unit designed to do just that the only thing is the plywood if you look at the base the back is secured by two wood screws and in my case when I braked sharply it came away

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

I know which is why I am shouting about it if I didn’t I could not live with my self knowing I haven’t done all that I can I’m not after compensation I don’t want to get rid of my motorhome I just want a fix and the manufacturer is responsible in my eyes

You're right to do that.
I think your biggest issues are:
The plywood back isn't strong enough for a forward collision. Your braking incident proved this.
The seatbelt attachment isn't strong enough for a rear or side impact. If the ply broke in the braking it would brake in the other direction.

That backboard should have some structural integrity.

 

[DBK]

There Is not any supports it just a forward facing unit designed to do just that the only thing is the plywood if you look at the base the back is secured by two wood screws and in my case when I braked sharply it came away

Do you mean the plywood came away, if so did the seat backs come with it?

If they did it clearly isn't fit for purpose but what comeback you have will depend on there being any regulatory requirement for it to meet any specific test.

My fear is there are no rules and this means you have no legal recourse. There is no requirement to crash test MHs so unless there is some guidance on construction you are stuck.

That said the design, as I understand it, is appalling.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MR BLO]

Couple of links that I found when researching our 6 seater. We looked at Apache 700 among others but none seemed to have the substantial ironwork that the (our 796) Bailey did.

https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/news/bailey-crash-tests-motorhomes-to-improve-safety

Pre-Autograph


Autograph


I would suggest that Apache like my autograph meets the stipulations of the NCC but maybe the “middle C” is part of the problem. Because caravans don’t have occupants.

 

[Jim]

you have will depend on there being any regulatory requirement for it to meet any specific test.

That's the thing, if it is sold as a designated travel seat, is it reasonable to assume your child should be as safe in it as in any other?

 

[Northernraider]

The question beckons why did you buy it? Surely you saw the arrangement prior to buying it. Can't see how anything can be done.

 

[DBK]

That's the thing, if it is sold as a designated travel seat, is it reasonable to assume your child should be as safe in it as in any other?

I think a case could be put together but the stakes would be high as the consequences for the manufacturer could be huge. They would throw everything at their defence.

 

[Solarhomer]

Look up the Bailey se760. This was one of the first six passenger motor homes to have comprehensive crash test carried.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}