The manufacture was WRONG and I proved it!
TLDRIn this video, the host challenges a claim made by a manufacturer in their training videos about the optimal way to right a vehicle using a chain. The host asserts that the manufacturer's advice to hook the chain to the high frame rail instead of the low one to exert more downward force is incorrect. To test this, he uses a large load cell with a wireless readout to measure the force exerted when righting a bus by attaching the chain to different points. After several attempts, including hooking to the window frame, low frame rail, high frame rail, and even wrapping the chain around the entire bus, the results consistently show no significant difference in the force required to right the bus, regardless of where the chain is attached. The host concludes that the point of attachment does not affect the force needed and advocates for the most accessible and practical point for attachment in real-world scenarios. The video serves as both a practical demonstration and a critique of the manufacturer's advice, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence over assumed knowledge.
Takeaways
- 🔍 The video aims to test and disprove a claim made by a manufacturer in their training video about the force exerted when righting a vehicle by attaching a chain to different frame rails.
- 🤔 The claim stated that attaching the chain to the high frame rail provides more downward force, which helps right the vehicle more effectively.
- 🚍 The experiment involves a school bus, a load cell to measure force, and a variety of attachment points to compare the force exerted in each scenario.
- 📐 The force required to right the bus was measured to be consistent regardless of whether the chain was attached to the high or low frame rail, or even the window frame.
- 🔗 The experimenter argues that the actual physics involved means that pulling on one frame rail will inherently pull on the connected rail, negating the manufacturer's claim.
- 📈 The load cell readings were consistent across different attachment points, suggesting that the point of attachment does not significantly affect the force required to right the vehicle.
- 🛠️ The experimenter emphasizes the importance of using the easiest and strongest point for attachment during a real recovery situation, rather than following the disputed advice.
- 📚 The video is not intended to criticize the manufacturer or the experts in the field but to correct a specific point that was factually incorrect in a training video.
- 🐾 A humorous aside involves the experimenter's dog, Rusty, being asked to leave the area for safety reasons during the operation.
- 🔄 The process of righting the bus is shown to be smooth and controlled, highlighting the effectiveness of the equipment used and the precision of the experiment.
- ✅ The final conclusion is that the point of attachment for the chain does not affect the force required to right the vehicle, contrary to the manufacturer's claim.
Q & A
What was the main point of contention between the speaker and the manufacturer's training video?
-The main point of contention was the manufacturer's claim that hooking a chain to the high frame rail rather than the low frame rail when a vehicle is on its side or upside down would significantly change the amount of force acting on the vehicle and how much force is required to pull it upright.
What did the speaker use to prove his point about the force required to flip the bus?
-The speaker used a large load cell with a wireless readout to measure the force required to flip the bus when hooked to different points on the frame.
Why did the speaker choose to flip the bus back and forth to test different points on the frame?
-The speaker wanted to demonstrate that the force required to pull the bus upright did not significantly change regardless of whether the chain was hooked to the low or high frame rail, contrary to the manufacturer's training video.
What was the speaker's intention in conducting this experiment?
-The speaker's intention was to prove basic physics and challenge the information presented in the manufacturer's training video, as well as to respond to internet experts who had criticized his initial assertion.
What was the speaker's conclusion about the effectiveness of hooking to different frame rails?
-The speaker concluded that there was no significant difference in the force required to pull the bus upright, regardless of whether the chain was hooked to the low or high frame rail, which contradicted the advice given in the manufacturer's training video.
What safety precautions did the speaker take during the experiment?
-The speaker made sure to have no slack in the line to avoid shock loading, controlled the operation from a safe distance using remotes, and ensured that his dog was away from the operation for safety.
Why did the speaker believe that the manufacturer's advice could be misleading?
-The speaker believed that the manufacturer's advice could be misleading because it suggested a physical difference in the force applied based on the frame rail chosen for hooking, which he argued was not supported by basic physics.
What was the speaker's final recommendation for choosing a point to hook during a vehicle recovery?
-The speaker recommended choosing the easiest and strongest point to hook that is accessible, arguing that it does not significantly change the amount of leverage or force required for the recovery.
How did the speaker address the criticism he received from experts on the internet?
-The speaker acknowledged the criticism but stood by his understanding of physics, and used the experiment to prove his point, inviting those who disagreed to reconsider their position in light of the empirical evidence.
What was the role of the load cell in the speaker's experiment?
-The load cell was used to measure the force exerted during the bus flipping process. It provided empirical data to support the speaker's argument that the point of hooking does not significantly affect the force required to upright the vehicle.
Why did the speaker choose a school bus for this experiment?
-The school bus was chosen likely because of its size, stability, and the fact that it was available to the speaker. It also provided a clear example for demonstrating the principles of leverage and force in vehicle recovery.
Outlines
🔍 Debunking Recovery Techniques
The speaker addresses a controversy from a previous video regarding the proper way to flip a vehicle using a chain. They refute a manufacturer's claim that hooking the chain to the high or low frame rail significantly impacts the force required to flip the vehicle. The speaker is motivated to prove the point using a load cell and a wireless readout to measure the force during the flipping of a bus, aiming to demonstrate that the actual point of attachment does not affect the force required.
🛠️ Testing Recovery Techniques
The speaker explains the process of testing different attachment points on a bus to determine the force required to flip it. They discuss the importance of not having slack in the line and the stability of the bus due to its low center of gravity. The speaker also emphasizes the gradual increase of force as the bus approaches the balance point and clarifies that the test is not aimed at discrediting the manufacturer but rather to correct misinformation.
🤔 Questioning the Logic Behind Recovery Techniques
The speaker challenges the logic behind the manufacturer's advice to hook the chain to the high side frame rail for more downward force. They argue that since the frame rails are connected by solid steel crossmembers, pulling on one should affect the other similarly. The speaker plans to test various points, including the window frame and the opposite extreme of the bus, to see if there's any difference in the force required.
📈 Analyzing the Force Required for Uprighting
The speaker discusses the process of uprighting the bus using a load cell to measure the force. They note the peak load observed when the bus begins to lift and how the force required decreases as the bus is further uprighted. The test results show no significant difference in force regardless of whether the chain is hooked to the low or high frame rail, contradicting the manufacturer's advice.
🔧 Experimenting with Extreme Attachment Points
The speaker conducts further tests by attaching the chain to extreme points on the bus, such as the window frame and wrapping it around the entire bus. Despite the unconventional attachment points, the force required to upright the bus remains consistent with previous tests, reinforcing the speaker's argument that the point of attachment does not significantly affect the force needed.
🏋️♂️ The Importance of Leverage and Fulcrum
The speaker explains the physics behind the recovery process, emphasizing that the point of attachment beyond the fulcrum (the point where the bus pivots) does not affect the force required. They argue that the angle at which the rigging pulls in relation to the fulcrum is the critical factor. The speaker concludes that the easiest and strongest point of attachment should be used for recovery, regardless of the specific attachment point.
🎬 Concluding the Test and Setting the Record Straight
The speaker concludes the test by uprighting the bus fully and discussing the implications of the findings. They address the criticism they received from experts, defending their position with the empirical data from the load cell. The speaker reiterates that the total weight and leverage are fixed, and the point of attachment does not change these factors. They also demonstrate a smooth recovery technique using a rollback and a lift, showcasing the practical application of their findings.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Load cell
💡Manufacturer
💡Frame rail
💡Zach lift
💡Roll back
💡Wireless readout
💡Rigging
💡Tipping point
💡Leverage
💡Fulcrum
💡YouTube experts
Highlights
Disagreement with a manufacturer's training video on the correct way to flip a vehicle using a chain.
The narrator's claim that hooking to the high or low frame rail does not change the force required to flip a vehicle.
Use of a large wireless load cell to measure and compare the force required in different scenarios.
Experiment to flip the bus over by hooking to different points to test the manufacturer's claim.
The importance of not having slack in the line during the flipping process to avoid shock loading.
Finding the balance point of the bus to prepare for the flipping experiment.
The surprising balance point of an empty 1980s Ford school bus.
The observation that the force required to pull the bus upright decreases as the bus approaches the tipping point.
The challenge of changing rigging configurations without causing injury or damage.
Testing various hooking points, including the window frame, low and high frame rails, and around the entire bus.
Results showing no significant difference in force required to flip the bus regardless of the hooking point.
The conclusion that the termination point of the rigging on the vehicle does not affect the force required for flipping.
The narrator's defense of his position against criticism from online experts.
The use of a synthetic rope instead of steel cable for easier handling and safety.
The successful demonstration of flipping the bus using the easiest hooking point, proving the narrator's point.
The narrator's emphasis on choosing the most accessible and safe hooking point for real-world applications.
The final smooth transition of the bus back onto its wheels, showcasing the effectiveness of the chosen method.