Now this is my point. We're building our OWN certifications here. "We" get to determine what is safe and what isn't safe through testing,
ON BUSES, and their frames, and use proven data ON BUSES, and not relying on historical data from outside sources like on RV's, and by RV companies. I only want data used on Converted Bus Frames, not RV's. One could argue that RV items lack durability on a bus frame vs an RV frame. Different vibrations, different handling, different use cases, who knows?
This is what we need to determine. We need to ditch the mindset of using and latching onto RV certifications, and guidelines. Every part needs to be re-evaluated for use on Bus Frames. It will be a ton of work. Ask ourselves, does this work, does this not work on a skoolie. Is it proven safe and effective to use, and will it break on a bus frame?
What you are describing is exactly what UL is for. You submit an item and they test it. But, as I understand it, the certification is only valid if installed under the same conditions as the testing was conducted using.
Practically, this means if I submit a stove for UL testing using my 40’ RE300 with front kitchen, any “approved” installation would have to meet those same conditions…so it would probably not be allowed in a short bus based on an E350 chassis.
NOTE: someone who knows better, please correct me if I’m wrong…this is outside my area.
While I understand what you’re saying about not wanting RV data, why not utilize appliances that have already been approved for RV use? Insurance companies have already accepted that these can be used in all manner of RVs, so that works to our advantage.
Whether it's "For an RV" or "Works on an RV" should really not hold any weight or bearing for this certification. We will make honest determinations based on data people provide. Decide that it's low risk or high risk on a bus, and classify it as we have data on it. A home depot house door may be terrible on an RV because the frame shifts more than on a Bus. A bus frame is more solid and doesn't move or shift nearly as much and may work fine, operate well, and is safe on a bus. There are differences and need to be evaluated and tested long term.
Who is the “we” making the determination? And again, what are their qualifications? I am a certified marine electrician, diesel mechanic, and marine systems tech. Is that good enough, or are there other quals? There are people on this forum who probably have way more experience with busses than me, but not the credentials…does that mean they don’t know what they are talking about? Of course not, but from an outsider perspective (I.e. insurance companies), whose statement will likely carry more weight? Not saying it’s right, just that it’s the way it is.
I want Insurance companies coming to US to make the determinations, not us going to THEM.
This is a lofty goal. Is it possible, sure. Is it probable? In my opinion, no. As Cadillac has stated, insurers want/need to make a profit. They will ALWAYS default to their internal stuff for guidance, cert or no cert.
If someone has an accident, we need as much info on what failed and broke from those incidents. If we find some installation someone did failed, or failed during a wreck, then those items need to be evaluated and understood as to why they failed and then modify as necessary the guidelines of whether it's acceptable or not.
So in addition to testing all of the gizmos, gadgets, and whatsits galore, we are also looking to have an NTSB-style investigation team also? Hmm…
Some of this knowledge we already have obviously, some we don't.
Do we though? As far as I can tell, all we have is some anecdotal evidence provided by folks who, while having the best of intentions, are not doing any sort of testing that would stand up to scientific inquiry. And that’s what we would need. In order for an experiment to be valid, it must be easily and exactly reproducible. Any change in variables means it’s a new test and any results neither prove or disprove the result of the test it’s based on.
But we need to make our own decisions on what is vs what isn't, through observation on buses and THEN when we have a reasonable amount of data on the subject and are sure what makes them safe vs what makes them dangerous,
See comment above about experiments. Anyone want to volunteer their bus to be a crash test dummy? :biggrin:
…make the case to insurance companies that wood stoves found from garages are unsafe because while mounted well, has weak legs that wouldn't survive an impact, and the force upon the weight will bend the legs etc for this type of wood stove, so these are not approved for our certification, but X type of wood stove is considered safe because Y mounting is not affected like the facebook marketplace wood stove. Or because it can close off during driving preventing a rocket stove type of situation etc and has a door that is lockable preventing embers from falling out and is mounted to the wall via a welded rod to better hold it in place. People need to understand if they want these things, they need to go the extra mile to make it safe if they want to drive them on the road legally with insurance.
In my humble opinion this quote block is exactly why a true certification isn’t going to work the way you think it will. If I install a wood stove in my bus, in order to get it insured, I’d bet the insurance company would want more proof than just a certification that it was installed correctly. And they probably won’t take a DIY install either.
Keep in mind as well as we present our case to the insurance companies and have these meetings with them, it's a two way street, we can ask for crash statistic data from them as well to assist us with certification modifications if our certifications don't align with their data, what I don't want to happen is that we go to the insurance companies and ask for the data unprepared, and then they have the upper hand in negotiations and ultimately make the determinations of what we can and cannot have in our skoolies.
Meeting with the insurance companies is a fantastic step to take. Hopefully, it helps the community understand the hesitancy of an insurer to write policies for bus conversions. And yes, we can ask for their data, but they don’t have to give it. It’s a private company, so we can’t make them turn it over. What happens if they say no?
Example, I want to be able to go to them and say, while yes your data shows many claims being filed due to this non RV water heater caught the place on fire, it was due to improper ventilation ducts not being added and it over heats if you don't do X, but it's been proven that if we do X, it is safe to use and should be insurable. If builders come to you for insurance and have one of our certifications, you can rest assured this item has been taken care
What if they don’t keep records that specific? And what if they have only 8 claims that an improperly installed water heater was the root cause? What was installed incorrectly? If we can’t answer those questions, then the whole thing is moot. We can certify till we’re blue in the face, but I think the reality is that we are a relatively small fish in a giant ocean of drivers and vehicles.
And in my mind, I think a certification system like you describe is impractical.
You want to be able to certify a wide range of parts, from appliances to windows and everything in between, along with wood stoves and roof raises, across multiple and often very different host platforms, yet still allowing unlimited creativity, the ability to DIY, all while keeping costs low but not relying on any existing standards. Did I get that right?
Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
If the above description was correct, which of those are you willing to compromise on?
The whole point of having standards is to make things easy for others to follow on and create similar situations to what’s described in the standards. In this case, we are trying to get people to build safer, and thus more incurable conversions. Is having 5 stove models to choose from, 7 windows, and 4 refrigerators helpful? I’d venture not.
But…
Would a document detailing the best practices to consider when choosing one of the above appliances, while providing examples at varying price points be helpful? I think 100% yes.
After reading through many of the comments regarding insurability, wood stoves, roof raises, decks, and even other certification threads, I think the thing that would help this community the most at this time is not an RVIA-style certification, but rather a voluntary ABYC-style standard that lays out best practices while including relevant portions of NFPA,NEC, and even CFR as applicable.
If someone follows the standards as outlined, then odds are, they will have a good chance of successfully insuring their build. Since it’s voluntary though, there is still the creative freedom to do as one pleases…just be willing to take the risk that you may not be able to insure your build if you deviate.
Further, setting up something like this will take months rather than years and could start impacting builders sooner, and if more conversions are being built to a better/higher standard, then I think the community as a whole wins.
Obviously, any certification or standard will not please all of the people all of the time, but I think a a voluntary standard of best practices is a good middle of the road solution.
Finally, while I have a slightly different idea, we both want to see more conversions get insurance more readily. To that end, we should start on the really important question of who gets to set the standard regardless of which proposal (cert, voluntary standards, or both) is moved forward.
As always, thoughts, questions, and criticism welcome! I know I certainly don’t have all the answers either!
JB
