In a message dated 06/12/99 04:10:20 GMT Standard Time, jemery@execpc.com
writes:
<< Well folks, it's time I got back up on my soapbox again as I see rumors and
>non-truths are circulating again from misinformed people.
> It was the GOVERNMENT who ordered its' destruction.
> First, what did we have? A tactical military vehicle that from the
start, was never
intended to be used as a civvy in the first order.
> Now lets talk about the most important thing of a 151-its' ability to
rollover
without any warning of overcoming its' center of gravity.
OK, lets talk about it. What was the official verdict from the accident
investigations that the military did? Driver error as I recall. If they
are so dangerous then why is the actual roll over test data of the MUTT
secret?
This situatuation with the Hmmv's has nothing to do with safety just as
with the Mutt's, it's politics. je >>
Dear Listers..........
once again, the thread of conversation comes around to the Mutt and safety,
and once again, despite protests from my wife, (who feels that I should get a
proper life instead of being a screen-jockey), I feel I must add a few
comments to keep this particular pot boiling.
Here are a few facts:-
In a letter dated 9th. Feb 1972, Col. V Smith of Dept of the Army Logistics
Office (DALO) wrote to Douglas Toms of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). The purpose of the letter was to advise the NHTSA
that the DALO wanted to donate M151-series trucks to Federal Agencies for use
in "rural and distressed areas for use as transportation, snowploughs and for
other community purposes".
Col. Smith went on to say "Should such use be approved, validated statements
would be required of authorized representatives of the Agencies concerned,
confirming that orientation, training and showing of films similar to the
military requirements would be mandatory for driver personnel prior to their
assignment to this type of vehicle. In addition, a decal describing the
handling limitations of the M151-series vehicles would be attached to the
dashboard of each vehicle before transfer".
He added.......... "It is recognised that the above action would not correct
the dangerous handling characteristics of these vehicles, however, the
effective training program should minimize the possibility of accidents".
NHTSA's Toms wrote back to Col. Smith 20th.March 1972. He said "Public Law
89-563 states that Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this Act is
to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from
traffic accidents. In addition, Public Law 89-584 authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to assist and concentrate with others to increase highway
safety".
He went on... "NHTSA cannot approve a proposal which has the potential to
increase traffic accidents and associated fatalities and injuries. Our
recommendation is that all surplus M151-series vehicles should be retired, as
stated in our letter of Sept.21, 1971".
I am not conversant with the US State vs Fed laws, but clearly, the NHTSA are
using Congress-approved Public Law to back up their recommendation not to
allow the M151-series to be released intact.
In a memo which was classified "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" but now reclassified
as "PUBLIC", the Army's Office For Defects Investigation (Sept 13, 1971)
stated "Army records indicate that the M151-series was involved in 7460
accidents worldwide in the years FY67 thru FY70 involving 138 fatalities.
2201, or roughly 30%, were rollover accidents". (This was despite intensive
driver-training programs).
The memo goes on to say "The design features (of the M151A2) to lessen
rollover propensity DID NOT ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM, but allowed approx. 10mph
greater speeds before rollover".
A memo written by Col. L.H Lockhart of the Army's Office of Deputy Chief of
Staff for Logistics (DCSLOG) dated 23Oct.1970, stated that the Office did not
agree with the acceptance of the M151A2 as "Standard A". DCSLOG felt that
among many reasons, safety of the truck was still problematic.
Lockhart wrote ....."safety verification testing established improved
handling characteristics of the M151A2 vehicle over the M151A1 vehicle when
driven by an experienced test driver at Aberdeen (PG) and Yuma
(PG)........soldiers agree that the M151A2 has more body lean in turns and
does not oversteer: however, they find NO IMPROVEMENT in overall safety of
operations over the M151A1 vehicle".
Col. Lockhart's objections to the acceptance of the M151A2 were overruled!
Another point is the reference to comparative rollover speeds, and whether
this information is or is not available. Well, you may be interested to know
that Ford Special Military Vehicles Operations produced a Stability Test
Film, and a memo dated 13May 1970 states that....... "attached are test
results......." These results are as follows:-
M151A1 + Driver Weight....................25.6 mph Rollover
M151A2 + Driver Weight....................31.4 mph Rollover
M38A1 + Driver Weight....................35 mph Rollover
M151 w/solid axle + Driver Weight......36.3 mph Rollover
Ford Fairlane....................................45+ mph NO ROLLOVER
I'm sure that lots more information is out there: it just needs to be tracked
down and requested (and, of course, paid for !!!).
It doesn't take a college degree to realise that the M151-series, in the
hands of Joe Public, would be accidents-waiting-to-happen. What we tend to
forget here is that most of us Mil-Veh types KNOW about the handling
peculiarities of the Mutt, but if these vehicles were generally available to
the public, how many untrained, unaware buyers would be puting themselves AND
OTHERS at risk?
Hope this wasn't as mind-numbing as my wife suggests it is !
Kind regards......
Ken
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:05 PST