BHP: not all minesite vehicles are created equal

[Road_Warrior]

Interesting (in depth) comments from BHP about utes on minesites and some misconceptions about vehicle safety. Read on:

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257A840000C026

THE world’s largest mining company, BHP Billiton, has prompted the world’s largest vehicle maker, Toyota, to elevate two of its key models – HiLux and LandCruiser – to five-star crash safety status as quickly as possible.

BHP has decided to only purchase light vehicles – primarily one-tonne utilities and four-wheel-drive wagons – which have achieved the maximum five-star rating under the independent Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) or overseas equivalent.

After a thorough assessment of vehicle-related safety, the mining giant is also prohibiting the installation of certain aftermarket equipment and is urging car manufacturers to offer more factory-fit technology in light commercial vehicles, such as intelligent ignition keys and advanced in-vehicle monitoring systems (IVMS).

The company’s new policy is likely to have an impact on all manufacturers of utilities and commercial 4WDs thanks to its buying power around the world, and the fact that the decision also applies to vehicles brought onto its mine sites by contractors.

BHP itself owns or leases about 10,000 light vehicles at its 80-odd mine sites around the world, while its contractors operate a further 45,000 vehicles.

Toyota has already announced that it will produce an out-of-sequence refresh on the HiLux to lift it to a five-star crash rating from October 2013, while the LandCruiser 200 Series will be five-star-rated from the first quarter of 2013.

The Japanese auto giant has also admitted there is no replacement for the rugged LandCruiser 70 Series, which due to the unavailability of electronic stability control (ESC) and side curtain airbags will never achieve a five-star rating and is expected to be discontinued within the next five years.

This is despite the development of an all-new dual-cab model and the recent introduction of a safety upgrade which finally includes an anti-lock braking system (ABS).

When BHP did a survey of its light vehicle fleet a few years ago, it found 90 per cent of the vehicles in use around the world were not fitted with ESC, few had curtain airbags and some did not have even dual front airbags.

BHP Billiton safety and security vice-president David Jenkins said a significant number of the company’s vehicles had ABS.

“In the past we had a high number of light-vehicle incidents and some vehicle rollover fatalities, although the last rollover fatality was some considerable time ago,” Mr Jenkins told a meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers – Australasia in Melbourne.

Mr Jenkins said that even when the same model ute was bought in different countries, it would have different safety specifications.

The industry dealt with this by retrofitting equipment, in particular rollover protection systems (ROPS).

But Mr Jenkins said “mission creep” meant operators added more and more equipment such as battery isolation switches, jump-start receptacles, bullbars, rollover protection bars, fire extinguishers and IVMS.

“We kept putting more and more stuff on our vehicles but, actually, our vehicle safety record didn’t improve that much,” he said.

Mr Jenkins said BHP’s records on significant incidents from recent years showed 19 rollovers, with most involving a partial rollover and only one involving a roll of more than 360 degrees.

The company experienced far more accidents involving light vehicles being run over by 300-tonne ore movers in open-cut mine pits.

So, BHP clamped down on pit licences to reduce the number of light vehicles in the mines. On one site, pit licences for light-vehicle drivers were cut by 75 per cent.

“If you’re not there, you can’t get run over,” he said.

Furthermore, the company encouraged drivers who used their utes only to commute to the mine site to switch to safer sedans.

In the pits, where there was sufficient space, the company also segregated the traffic by giving the light vehicles their own road in parallel with the track used by ore trucks.

BHP decided to test utes see if all the expensive aftermarket additions being tacked on to them improved safety.

The company took four utes at the end of their leases to NSW’s road safety research unit, Crashlab, and had them put through some typical accident situations.

All the utes had bullbars and three had rollover protection inside the cab.

The 64km/h frontal offset crash showed that a ute fitted with a bullbar suffered deformation in the footwell area, with the accelerator and clutch pedals ending up crossed over.

The standard vehicle had no deformation in the footwell when it was crash-tested in 2006.

Mr Jenkins pointed out that the BHP vehicle fitted with ROPS and bullbar weighed 250kg more than the standard ute.

The rear seatbelt foundation also failed – not seen in the standard vehicle test – resulting in a potentially fatal blow to the head for the rear-seat passenger.

The 75km/h rollover test was more startling. The vehicle without ROPS was used first and turned through 90 degrees on to its side.

The vehicle was still usable, so Crashlab ran the test again, only this time 35kg of weight was added in the upper cabin to represent the ROPS system. This time, the vehicle turned straight over on to its roof.

He said this did not mean a ROPS would cause a ute to roll. But, if the vehicle was in an unstable condition, the added momentum of the ROPS might aggravate that instability.

Mr Jenkins read the final report from Crashlab, which said: “The internal ROPS fitted to the vehicle demonstrated limited potential for additional protection for front-seat occupants in any of the tested crash configurations.

“The ROPS did not eliminate roof crush over the front-seat occupants in the tested rollover crashes and offers no real reduction in any potential serious head and spinal injuries for these occupants in that type of crash.”

Mr Jenkins pointed out that if you have a serious multi-roll accident, ROPS will make a difference. But he said BHP was not seeing that type of crash in its incident reports.

He also stressed that the results achieved at Crashlab could not be used as a generic guide to all one-tonne utilities.

In light of the crash results, BHP changed its light-vehicle policy on May 18, 2012. The whole fleet must be changed over by January 2016.

From now on, all new BHP vehicles anywhere in the world must have a five-star NCAP rating.

The new rules prohibit the installation of aftermarket equipment, except for minor exceptions such as where equipment is needed for visibility or communications.

Apart from the safety benefits, the new rules will save the company and its contractors a lot of money and time.

Mr Jenkins said it once cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to fit out vehicles with ROPS, bullbars and other aftermarket gear. And it took eight weeks.

Now BHP’s light vehicles cost less than $15,000 to prepare for work in the pit, with reflective stripes, two-way radio and an appropriate tray.

Mr Jenkins said the new policy fitted in with part of BHP’s charter, which is to keep things as simple as possible.

He said the previous light-vehicle standard for BHP’s metallurgical coal division ran for 45 pages. The standard now covers half a page with only six bullet points.

However, these new policies will not solve all the problems, he admitted.

Mr Jenkins said he still had a wish list he would like to be able to implement.

These included intelligent ignition keys so speeds could be limited in certain areas or acceleration curbed so the chances of getting into trouble are much less.

“That would be perfect,” he said. “If I could just have an intelligent ignition key for the mine site and another for the open road – just swap them at the gate – I don’t have to worry about someone speeding on the site because I know they can’t.”

Other features he would like to see include factory-fitted IVMS (in-vehicle monitoring systems) and fatigue detection systems, the latter only appearing in some sedans but not utilities at this stage.

“We spend a fortune on IVMS in light vehicles in Australian mine sites and have terrible trouble getting them to work consistently,” he said.

Puts the Ranger in good stead to pick up some sales from BHP at least, I'm sure the other miners will follow BHP's lead.

[2011G6E]

I've noticed that the newer 78 series V8 diesel Cruisers on mine sites, and the rental ones I've driven, have two airbags in the front now and no Jesus Handle on the passenger side dash.

Of course, it's still like stepping back to the seventies inside apart from the excellent new touch-screen double DIN Toyota stereo, but damn, you get an instant feeling of confidance that you could head directly west ignoring road maps and not stop driving for anything in your way until you reached Broome.

The HiLuxes are nice, but if I had the moolah a 78 Series would be in the driveway.

I'd agree with the idea of an intelligent ignition key setup...I've been in utes with guys on mine sites who drive like their hair is on fire...scares the hell out of you when you see the size of the other things sharing the road with you...

Anyone else remember the "Valet key" that a Corvette came out with? I think if was the early nineties versions with the then-new EFI all alloy small block in it. The way it worked was that there was a second key (that you obviously took with you) that when into a "second ignition lock" under a section of the center console. You then took the key with you. This switch did something to the EFI computer, limiting the revs, top speed, and adjusting the engine so it only put out about half the normal horsepower...the standard joke at the time was "Imagine finally loaning your begging kid the Corvette for the night, and then letting the little bugger find out you'd turned the valet switch..."

[Road_Warrior]

Yeah I remember the Valet Key for the Corvette. Was in the ZR1 I think. Ford now does a similar thing for the Mustang with the "track key" but it's use is different I think.

Personally I'm a fan of the 76 series 4 door wagons. Gotta think of the family too you know ;)

[Smoke Pursuit]

My Uncle has a new 78 series and its a bucket of ****. He prefers my BT-50. Hes trying to sell the Toyota, and probably will easily enough!

[excopau]

Ranger is better

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yeah I remember the Valet Key for the Corvette. Was in the ZR1 I think. Ford now does a similar thing for the Mustang with the "track key" but it's use is different I think.

Personally I'm a fan of the 76 series 4 door wagons. Gotta think of the family too you know ;)

Doesn't the US Focus have a version of this smart key, where it speed limits the car along with a few other features like not driving until the seatbelts are done up, and also limits the volume of the stereo. So parents can use it to loan the car to the kids?

Or is it the Fusion?

[lindo]

have a 2012 plate Mazda BT50 as my work ute.....5 star.

The levels some HSE people are going with vehicle safety in oil, gas and mining industries is absolutely ridiculous. All with very little research. With Origin Energy I am required to have a mine dune flag pole mounted on the bull-bar. This is for an area that operates on open plains and farming land. Not in sand dunes at Moomba like Santos encounter or at an open cut mine with overburden! Just some crazy crazy rules....

Great to see BHP have actually done some research and realised they were potentially creating a risk.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Doesn't the US Focus have a version of this smart key, where it speed limits the car along with a few other features like not driving until the seatbelts are done up, and also limits the volume of the stereo. So parents can use it to loan the car to the kids?

Or is it the Fusion?

I don't recall anything about that feature in the Focus, if it was there, Ford would have been ****ing about it for 6 months and we'd know about it. I have an idea it was in another car. Was it the Taurus SHO??

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I don't recall anything about that feature in the Focus, if it was there, Ford would have been ****ing about it for 6 months and we'd know about it. I have an idea it was in another car. Was it the Taurus SHO??

Here it is.

FORD’S INNOVATIVE MYKEY SYSTEM HELPS TEENS DRIVE SAFER, CONSERVE FUEL; GIVES PARENTS PEACE OF MIND
•MyKey®, another innovation from the company that introduced SYNC®, allows parents to limit speed and audio volume to encourage teens to drive safer and improve fuel efficiency
•Harris Interactive Survey shows that many parents would allow teens to drive more often if their vehicle was equipped with MyKey – helping young drivers build road safety experience
•MyKey debuted as a standard feature on the 2010 Ford Focus and is now a no-cost feature on nearly all Ford and Lincoln models

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 26, 2011 – Ford Motor Company’s innovative MyKey technology is designed to help parents encourage their teenagers to drive safer and more fuel efficiently, and increase safety-belt use.

Ford’s MyKey feature – which debuted as standard equipment on the 2010 Ford Focus and is now standard on nearly all Ford and Lincoln models – allows owners to program a key that can limit the vehicle’s top speed and audio volume. MyKey also encourages safety-belt use, provides earlier low-fuel warnings and can be programmed to sound chimes at 45, 55 and 65 mph.

“Ford not only offers industry-leading crash protection and crash avoidance systems, we also are committed to developing new technologies such as MyKey that encourage safer driving behavior,” said Sue Cischke, Ford group vice president of Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering. “MyKey can help promote safer driving, particularly among teens, by encouraging safety belt use, limiting speed and reducing distractions.”

MyKey is appealing to parents of teen drivers, including 75 percent who like the speed-limiting feature, 72 percent who like the more insistent safety-belt reminder, and 63 percent who like the audio limiting feature, according to a Harris Interactive Survey conducted for Ford.

About 50 percent of those who would consider purchasing MyKey also said they would allow their children to use the family vehicle more often if it were equipped with the new technology. The added seat time can help teens build their driving skills in a more controlled setting, complementing graduated licensing laws that give young drivers more driving freedom as they get older.

More than half of the parents surveyed worry that their teenagers are driving at unsafe speeds, talking on hand-held cell phones or texting while driving, or are otherwise driving distracted. More than a third of parents also are concerned that their teens do not always buckle their safety belts when driving.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), teens are more likely to take risks such as speeding – a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes. Teens also are less likely to wear safety belts than older drivers.

Teens surveyed by Harris said they are largely open to MyKey if it means they will have more freedom to drive. Initially, 67 percent of teens polled said they wouldn’t want MyKey features. However, if using MyKey would lead to greater driving privileges, only 36 percent would object to the technology.
“We’ve upgraded an existing, proven technology – the SecuriLock® Passive Anti-Theft System – with some simple software upgrades to develop a new unique feature that we believe will resonate with customers,” said Graydon Reitz, director, Electrical and Electronic Systems Engineering, the same team that developed SYNC in partnership with Microsoft. “We also developed MyKey’s functions in such a way to quickly spread it across multiple vehicle lines, giving us the ability to go mass market in the spirit of other Ford innovations such as safety belts, stability control and SYNC.”

Holding the key
The MyKey system allows the parent to program any key through the vehicle message center, which updates the SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft System. When the MyKey is inserted into the ignition, the system reads the transponder chip in the key and immediately identifies the MyKey code, which enables certain default driving modes, including:
•Persistent Ford Belt-Minder® with audio mute. Ford’s Belt-Minder system typically provides a six-second reminder chime every minute for five minutes. With MyKey, the Belt-Minder chime continues at the regular interval and the audio system is muted until the safety belt is buckled. A message center display, “Buckle Up to Unmute Radio,” also appears on the instrument cluster
•Earlier low-fuel warning. Rather than a warning at 50 miles to empty, MyKey provides a warning at 75 miles to empty
•If MyKey is in the ignition, features such as park aid and BLIS® (Blind Spot Information System) with cross-traffic alert cannot be deactivated

Additional MyKey features that can be programmed through the vehicle’s message center setup menu:
•Limited top speed of 80 mph
•Traction control system, that limits tire spin, cannot be deactivated
•Limited audio volume to 44 percent of total volume
•A speed alert chime at 45, 55 or 65 mph

Using MyKey to teach teens to avoid speeding can provide an added benefit – improved fuel economy. Ford research shows that driving 55 mph instead of 65 mph consumes 15 percent less fuel, and mastering other eco-driving habits such as avoiding jackrabbit starts and excessive idling can help improve fuel economy by more than 50 percent.

[Brazen]

Interesting that I heard on the weekend that that a mine on FNQ is going to start trialling speed limited utes on the mining sites and not have them leave the site and instead have lease cars used for commuting back to town. It means they can expensively outfit the utes on the site and not have them rack up massive kms on the highway making them wear out too quick. Also the speed limiting of the utes is a major safety breakthrough....

The downside? They are purchasing around 40 diesel Volkswagen Passats sedans...blah. Buy some Aussie Falcons!!

[SPArKy_Dave]

Originally Posted by Brazen

and not have them rack up massive kms on the highway making them wear out too quick.

The downside? They are purchasing around 40 diesel Volkswagen Passats sedans...blah. Buy some Aussie Falcons!!

Won't stop the pit vehicles rusting out in two yrs though.

And wait till they experience the issues, VW have with their DSG transmissons, etc.

Falcon sedans, would definitely be better.

[excopau]

because we do work for ARROW my new idiot boss just says yes all time even when we dont need to be mine spec because our contract under $20000, the amount of money we waisted on ivms for 6 cars and rops and so on is rediculous

[davez104]

Highway kms commuting to and from site would add negligible wear and tear to the vehicles that actually get used in the pits day in and day out. It would only be superintendents cars they'd be looking at replacing which see bugger all use on site anyway, better off leaving them in the office were they belong.

Not sure where you're headed with that statement, contract size would have very little to do with what safety requirements need to be met, if the vehicle goes on any mine site, it needs to meet that sites safety criteria, no ifs or buts. That's not to say that mining companies don't turn a blind eye to safety requirements when it suits them though.

Will be interesting to see how these Rangers go in the long term, we've had two in our department for about 2 months now, one is off site with engine issues, possibly head gasket I heard, the other is off site with a bent tailshaft.

[FalconXV]

On the subject of mining vehicles, does anybody know how Falcon Utes stand up to the punishment, compared to the Thai utes?(I know they wouldn't take them underground like 70 series)

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by davez104

Highway kms commuting to and from site would add negligible wear and tear to the vehicles that actually get used in the pits day in and day out. It would only be superintendents cars they'd be looking at replacing which see bugger all use on site anyway, better off leaving them in the office were they belong.

Not sure where you're headed with that statement, contract size would have very little to do with what safety requirements need to be met, if the vehicle goes on any mine site, it needs to meet that sites safety criteria, no ifs or buts. That's not to say that mining companies don't turn a blind eye to safety requirements when it suits them though.

Will be interesting to see how these Rangers go in the long term, we've had two in our department for about 2 months now, one is off site with engine issues, possibly head gasket I heard, the other is off site with a bent tailshaft.

No, more that they can speed limit the utes which means they don't leave the site. The VWs are used on the highway to commute.

[davez104]

Originally Posted by FalconXV

On the subject of mining vehicles, does anybody know how Falcon Utes stand up to the punishment, compared to the Thai utes?(I know they wouldn't take them underground like 70 series)

I know all sites are different, but at ours and probably most others, the Falcon utes wouldn't leave the bitumen, 4WD only nowdays.

Originally Posted by Brazen

No, more that they can speed limit the utes which means they don't leave the site. The VWs are used on the highway to commute.

They don't need to be speed limited permanently, we have vehicles with speed limiters that are turned off with a key. I don't see it as a major safety breakthrough, all the light vehicle incidents I've seen have been with the vehicle parked or travelling under the 80km/h that they would be limited to. Granted, the possibility is there that an incident would be more severe if it happened at high speed, but IMO it's really not a major issue.

[vanman_75]

So far I have heard of fires , blown engines, dodgy gearboxes,not a good start for ranger .too low but that's a cheap fix .us operators could tell em all the extra junk on their utes made em drive like boats , good to see they have finally woken up to the fact . Still only patrol and the cruisers can claim any toughness