Are we converting our buses into a potential desaster?

[IMABUSBOY]

As I was removing the luggage racks on my 1987 MCI 96A3 coach a few months ago, I realized that  each of the composite brackets going from the ceiling to the wall were actually 45° corner gusset braces. This would make them structural in nature. While removing the seats I realized that these too, were bolted from the floor to the wall thereby creating another brace, of sorts. The metal railing surrounding the driver seat and the knee wall on the passenger side by the stairwell are also bolted on the floor and the wall making them braces as well.
I am not a structural engineer but I worked as a on-site superintendent for a construction company for many years. My concern is that since all of the internal bracing has been removed, wouldn't that allow the walls of the bus to "rack" going around a turn.. Especially a sharp turn? A continuation of this moment could "worry" the remaining structural supports at the ceiling/wall corners and the floor/wall corners until the inevitable happens.

I may be way out left field somewhere, or perhaps just missing something, but is there anyone else on this forum that has had the same concern?
I realize that the installation of the internal walls would provide some structural integrity but that would not be even close to the supports that were removed.
I'm sure that I will figure a way to replace some of those braces.
Thanks for your answers. Danny

[Iceni John]

Even the worst-built bus is much stronger and more crash-survivable than most (but not all) RVs.   I wouldn't worry about this!   At least our buses won't turn into kindling if they hit something.

John

[eagle19952]

Not sure... BUT... I know Eagle and Prevost sold shells that never saw luggage racks or seats...

[IMABUSBOY]

True Iceni. Ive seen a few of those trash trails left by some rvs.
Eagle, I thought of that too. Maybe those are structurally designed a little differently.??

[eagle19952]

True Iceni. Ive seen a few of those trash trails left by some rvs.
Eagle, I thought of that too. Maybe those are structurally designed a little differently.??

of course...they are mo bettah 

ps just kiddin 

[robertglines1]

Shell or seated coach structure  is identical Prevost.  If your talking MCI  I built one and ran for years without luggage racks or seats. FWIW   Bob  My entertainer coach has taller inside height but windows are same as seated coach.

[Scott & Heather]

What constitutes "disaster"?   I'm trying to just think through the post title. Just my opinion, but driving a bus down a 6% grade in 100 degree temps at 80 mph on a 19 year old under inflated dry rotted tire might constitute "disaster". But converting a coach and removing the seats and luggage racks to build it doesn't constitute "disaster" to me. Thousands and thousands of coaches have been converted and nearly none of them have their original seats, rails, or luggage racks. Some like ours have raised roofs (I was told that was structurally a bad idea) and drive down the road perfect, go around turns just fine, bounce across speed bumps and if you're Craig Holland, you thrash your bus pretty hard in someone's farm field every few weeks or so. What would the "disaster" be? I guess if I blew a steer, and rolled the bus several times, it might flex and tweak.....depending on how severe the rollover was, it might keep its basic structural integrity or it might not. That has a lot to do with how bad the accident was and not whether I left the luggage racks, drivers surround and seat rails intact. An accident severe enough to test the structural integrity differences of a coach with or without said items is an accident that will likely result in much much more injury from A: rolling around in the coach cause your passengers are not buckled.
B: your stuff rolling around because no matter how well you bolt it down, enough of a jolt will send it all scrambling around and I'm pretty sure one wouldn't feel too well after getting clocked with a 300 pound refrigerator.

Also, I would love to actually see data from a bus MFG that indicated the engineers intended the seats, luggage racks and drivers surround to be structurally integral to the coach integrity. I am more apt to think the luggage racks are beefy because they don't want people's heavy luggage crashing down on 50 people's heads when the bus crosses a rough set of train tracks. The seats are beefy because they don't want 50 people tossed about in the bus when he brakes hard and it breaks loose from its mount. Sometimes I think we overthink stuff on this forum just a little and need to step back and realize that  certain aspects of coach safety are extremely important, but some discussion here is more banter than serious safety issue. I place this in the latter category.
My life is full of risks. They are calculated, but they are there. Driving a converted bus with a roof raise and no luggage racks, seat rails, or drivers surround isn't one of them. All that being said, if it's gonna keep you awake at night, I think you could creatively keep the luggage racks and incorporate them into your interior design. They are strong and could hold a ridiculous amount of weight.. You'd have to come up with doors for them...but I think it could be made to look really nice. The drivers surround could stay and wouldn't cause issues with your conversion, but your seats? Not sure how you'd work that out. You could keep the seat rails for added stiffness, they are under a bit of load. Trust me. When we removed
ours every weld we cut, made the whole rail pop. When we raised our roof, we welded in 1/8" thick square steel tube as cross braces between the window openings we weren't using. That's twice the thickness of the mild steel ribbing that comes stock with a 9. Reskinned with 1/8" aluminum sheet, also nearly twice as thick as the stock skin. That's about all we did to strengthen it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kyle4501]

The stuff you mentioned are most definitely structural, but you must consider how different uses place different loads on the structure.

The 'live loading' of passengers & their loose luggage is very different than the stuff we put in. When you remove the load of all the passengers, you don't need the structure to 'secure' them.

40 people & their stuff at ~250# each = 10,000# .

My better half & I with all of our loose stuff is well under that !

[TomC]

Structurally wise, all the seats and racks that are attached to the walls and ceiling provide some support. My transit did not have any overhead cargo. Just seats. I don't think much is added on the seats to the structure. When I finished my bus with my wife and I in it and all our junk in with tanks full I weighed the bus and was 5,000lbs below the maximum gvw rating. Not many motorhomes made with that kind of surplus.

On my truck, I built it with 1.5" square tubing with 1/8" walls welded on 16" centers. I visited the shop that built my box (professionally built box, otherwise the insurance company would not insure it. They didn't care about the interior) when the walls were completed, but the roof wasn't in yet. I could rock the truck with the walls without any visible flexing. So add to that the roof, then the outside .060" skin glued to the tubing, then also the 3/4" horizontal Apitong (type of mahogany) slats screwed to the interior of the tubing, then the 1/4" interior plywood, and you then have a very strong wall. Buses are built very strong, with schoolies and transits being the strongest because of their service.  Good Luck, TomC

[robertglines1]

One thing most of us converting do is add at least 1 or 2 partition walls which I would think produce far more support than the overhead racks or seats.  Any thing is able to be destroyed you just have to decide what will fit your tolerances. Sometimes I think I can destroy a anvil with a rubber hammer! If you feel uncomfortable run away fast.!!!    Bob

[Lin]

I would think that the bracing for the seats and luggage rack had more to do with them being capable of doing their design task than structurally re-enforcing the shell.  Anyway, since there are lots of converted coaches on the road, there is ample performance history to tell us whether they are not capable of holding up to our use.  I see no reason to worry about a scenario, even if I can imagine it, that seems unsupported by millions of miles of real world experience.

[IMABUSBOY]

 Oh, I think I rubbed some people the wrong way. Didn't mean to! I'm not worried that my coach will collapse. I realize that the weight of the luggage of 50 people riding overhead, would create much more lateral stress on a turn than a coach with all the weight at the floor level and below. I'm not even concerned about the scenario I described coming true, but it crossed my mind at the time. Given by background, I guess I always think in that direction. Old habits are hard to break. My wife and I love our coach and enjoy it every chance we get! We love bus people and the bus culture! We have a class A,(different people), but there's no comparison to 'The Sparrow'!
We are the talk of just about every RV park or campground we visit. It seems that people just have to stop and say hi. We logged 3,088 miles this month on a 9 day trip to Louisiana, Texas and back home through Texarkana Little Rock Ark and Nashville.
We're planning a 5-6 day trip to Niagara Falls in a few weeks.. mid Oct. That will be our last trip at least the rest of this year. We need to build up more vaca time and $$$. We want to do all we can before winter sets in. I cant wait till she retires! As stated here, I am much more concerned about a tire than a roof collapse!
Thanks to all of you for your wisdom!  What do I know.. after all, I'm just a bus boy. haha Danny

[Lin]

I don't think that anyone was offended, and the question was worth asking. 

[eagle19952]

I don't think that anyone was offended, and the question was worth asking. 

agree 

[Oonrahnjay]

...  40 people & their stuff at ~250# each = 10,000# .  

     Interesting ...  I'm in the middle of a repower.  The new engine and transmission (according to published specs) are almost 1500 pounds lighter than the ones taken out.  Yesterday, we dropped the rear axle -- I've not had a chance to weigh it and there are no published numbers, but to take it out, we dropped it onto a pair of 800 pound-rated transmission jacks, one under each brake drum, and one of them bent!!!  (It's a big, heavy low-floor axle with differential on one side, and a pair of big planetary gears one on each side with a low slung housing between them.  It's a monster.)  I'm conservatively guessing that the Meritor axle and suspension (air instead of leaf springs) that's going in it's place is 700 pounds lighther.  My total savings in powertrain will be over a ton!  
     The empty weight of my bus before I began stripping seats, etc. out was 19,000 pounds, but it was designed to carry a total of 98 passengers plus driver.  I'm assuming that the design criteria was more like about 165 pounds per person (average men, women, children etc.) but that still gives a Gross Weight of 36,000 pounds.  If I consider the weight of seats etc. removed and a savings of approx. 2000 pounds in powertrain, I'm thinking my new "empty weight equivalent" is down to something like 16,500 pounds.  Can I really have a margin of 20,000 pounds before I get up to design Gross Weight?  (Unfortunately, since the bus was made before modern GVWR's, I can't find a published GVWR,
     It will be interesting to weigh my bus after full conversion and see how the numbers come out.  I don't think that I've taken out any components that added to structural strength of the shell.