School Transportation News November 2009 : Page 48

School Transportation News Magazine | November 2009 Raising School buS Seating will Soon See changeS in Seat back height, but Some companieS are looking into the future when it comeS to Safe, reliable Seating By Stephane Babcock On April 1, 1977, school buses took a major step forward in becoming one of the safest forms of transportation available to school children. Included in the number of federal safety standard changes was the school bus seat, specifically FMVSS 222 and 301. The new standards called for school bus compartmentalization and burn resistance requirements for material used in the interior of school buses. Last year, NHTSA finalized its rulings on seat belts and called for an increase in seat back heights. This change has had a rip- pling effect that has made its way to the seat manufacturers and the companies that supply them with the materials to create them. Starting from Scratch and adding incheS Before 1977, school bus seating was pro- duced with exposed metal frames, or back pans. With the implementation of 222, the back pads were soon produced from high-density rebond foam. These foams remained relatively unchanged until the mid 1980s, when fuel economy became very important. “The best way to improve fuel mileage is to reduce weight,” said David Murphy, sales manager for Triad Fabco Industries, a foam manufacturer. “Everyone researched ways to reduce weight by any means pos- sible. A few ounces saved per seat would become pounds when multiplied by the number of seats in a bus.” More recently, manufacturers have changed their focus to heights — 24 inch- es worth, to be exact. NHTSA’s final rule will increase the seatback height 4 inches 48 across the board, a requirement compa- nies said they are ready to meet. Although machines must be retooled and material costs may increase, the change is not as complicated as it may seem. “There have been few changes in the seating since 1977. The concept has re- mained the same — a seat that meets all FMVSS standards was the bottom line for every manufacturer,” said Roger Ashby, vice president of Foam Rubber, LLC. “As for the retooling for the new higher seat coming in October [2010], we have imple- mented the new high back very quickly without any major problems with our production and materials.” taking cueS from detroit Ron Lamparter has been a fixture in the school bus industry for the better part of 50 years. Born and raised in Detroit, he is intimately familiar with how the auto in- dustry works. It is that thinking that has taken him to his current position as CEO of Syntec Seating and has pushed him to adapt technology from the automobile world to meet the needs of school buses. “We’re building our seat frames like the automobile industry,” said Lamparter. “The M2K seat is produced with all of the automotive technology.” He explained that, instead of using 20 or 30 parts welded together to make a seat frame, the company takes two or three large pieces of steel, stamps them out and attaches them together. The result is a lighter, less costly seat frame. The tool utilized for this process was designed with inserts, allowing the workers to neck that seat pan down from 45 inches, to 39 inch-

RAISING THE BAR

STEPHANE BABCOCK

SCHOOL BUS SEATING WILL SOON SEE CHANGES IN SEAT BACK HEIGHT, BUT SOME COMPANIES ARE LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE WHEN IT COMES TO SAFE, RELIABLE SEATING

On April 1, 1977, school buses took a major step forward in becoming one of the safest forms of transportation available to school children. Included in the number of federal safety standard changes was the school bus seat, specifically FMVSS 222 and 301. The new standards called for school bus compartmentalization and burn resistance requirements for material used in the interior of school buses.

Last year, NHTSA finalized its rulings on seat belts and called for an increase in seat back heights. This change has had a rippling effect that has made its way to the seat manufacturers and the companies that supply them with the materials to create them.

STARTING FROM SCRATCH AND ADDING INCHES

Before 1977, school bus seating was produced with exposed metal frames, or back pans. With the implementation of 222, the back pads were soon produced from high-density rebond foam. These foams remained relatively unchanged until the mid 1980s, when fuel economy became very important.

“The best way to improve fuel mileage is to reduce weight,” said David Murphy, sales manager for Triad Fabco Industries, a foam manufacturer. “Everyone researched ways to reduce weight by any means possible. A few ounces saved per seat would become pounds when multiplied by the number of seats in a bus.”

More recently, manufacturers have changed their focus to heights — 24 inches worth, to be exact. NHTSA’s final rule will increase the seatback height 4 inches across the board, a requirement companies said they are ready to meet. Although machines must be retooled and material costs may increase, the change is not as complicated as it may seem.

“There have been few changes in the seating since 1977. The concept has remained the same — a seat that meets all FMVSS standards was the bottom line for every manufacturer,” said Roger Ashby, vice president of Foam Rubber, LLC. “As for the retooling for the new higher seat coming in October [2010], we have implemented the new high back very quickly without any major problems with our production and materials.”

TAKING CUES FROM DETRIOT

Ron Lamparter has been a fixture in the school bus industry for the better part of 50 years. Born and raised in Detroit, he is intimately familiar with how the auto industry works. It is that thinking that has taken him to his current position as CEO of Syntec Seating and has pushed him to adapt technology from the automobile world to meet the needs of school buses.

“We’re building our seat frames like the automobile industry,” said Lamparter. “The M2K seat is produced with all of the automotive technology.”

He explained that, instead of using 20 or 30 parts welded together to make a seat frame, the company takes two or three large pieces of steel, stamps them out and attaches them together. The result is a lighter, less costly seat frame. The tool utilized for this process was designed with inserts, allowing the workers to neck that seat pan down from 45 inches, to 39 inches, 36, 30 to even 26. And, rather than use multiple pieces of foam to create the cushioned seat back, Lamparter purchases molded urethane foam.

The idea of employing new forms of foam is not new to others players in the school bus market. For Brandon Billingsley, it is the future, one that is safer and more affordable. Two years ago, at the NAPT trade show in Grand Rapids, Mich., Billingsley set up a new seat in his Heavy Duty Bus Parts booth and waited for the response. It was only a concept and was a few years off from becoming a finished piece, but it was an idea he was both proud of and excited to show.

“Injection molded foam with an integrated bonded skin is basically a vinyl over foam replacement,” explained Billingsley. “We are using a composite form where we can put other things within the mold before it is shot with the foam so that it can take up some other types of urethane, which can lower the costs and take up some of the space. Yet, it is as energy absorbent, if not more, than the typical rebonded urethane foam that is used today in the foam that would go underneath the vinyl on school bus seats.”

This new procedure would not only create a stronger, safer seat, it would eliminate the use of a vinyl covering. The process may seem confusing at first, but, simply put, a chemical mixture takes place when the polyurethane foam is placed within the mold. As the foam reaches its boiling point — typically around 95 degrees — it begins to expand within the mold. As it expands, it rushes to any open area, becoming more dense in areas where it pushes up to the aluminum of the mold. This causes the exterior foam to cool faster and form a skin, which would be used in place of a vinyl covering.

The polyurethane skin is actually more flame-retardant because the flame-retardant characteristics are built into the chemical makeup of the foam core. And, according to Billingsley, it will meet the most stringent flame-retardant test, like the bag burn test.

“The entire foam piece will meet it, from the very outside skin portion all the way to the inside and throughout the core. You can’t cut it open and create an oxygen flow because it’s just one solid piece,” said Billingsley.

Consumers will also still be able to get the same vinyl look, as the mold has been etched to give it that finished graining pattern for aesthetic purposes. The seat could also be molded to further the compartmentalization by placing a side wall bolster to keep kids from coming out of the seat on the aisle during an off-camber collision. It would also keep kids from sitting halfway into the aisle.

“You could start doing more radical things, like adding some shape to the back of the seat that would keep them more compartmentalized. Instead of raising the seat backs, we could give them some shape to the back of the seat, just a small contour, that, in the event of a serious collision where they could be ejected over the seat, would help hold them in,” said Billingsley.

His next step will be to discuss the new technology at the 2010 National Congress on School Transportation, asking whether this is a better application for school bus seats.

“We’ve been having a seat belt debate, and there’s pros and cons to it, and now they are raising the seat backs. That’s only one answer; there are other answers out there because technology has come so far since 1977. This is going to open up a whole range of options to say, ‘Hey, this is what we can do as far as compartmentalization and moving it forward,’” explained Billingsley.

The debate may not be as difficult as he once thought. According to Mike Kenney, chair of the school bus specifications committee for the upcoming National Congress on School Transportation, there is nothing in FMVSS or NCST that requires vinyl on seats.

“In the national specifications, we try not to get too specific with a material but instead apply a performance criteria,” said Kenney. “We are very careful when adding technology to the standards as there are several states that have to follow them by the letter and we are mindful of cost. But most important it is about student safety.” Something that Billingsley agrees with 100 percent.

“It’s not a sales approach, it’s a safety approach.”

Previous Page  Next Page

Publication List