GL1800Riders Forums banner

41 - 60 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
What this calls for is a LOPA.

--

LOPA is a simplified form of risk assessment. It assists in compliance with PSM and RMP regulations and with the ANSI/ISA S84.00.01-2004 / IEC 61511 standards, Functional Safety: Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector.

LOPA is often used as an extension of process hazard analysis (PHA). PHA teams use engineering judgment to decide if additional safeguards are needed to protect against accident scenarios they identify. This subjective approach can lead to disagreements and possibly inappropriate measures to reduce risk. A more rational and objective approach is needed, at least when considering risk remediation measures for high risk scenarios or those that are expensive to implement. Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) was developed for this purpose.

LOPA is also used to comply with the IEC 61511 / ISA 84 standards. IEC 61511 / ISA 84 requires the allocation of safety functions to protection layers, the determination of required Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) and the determination of their Safety Integrity Levels (SIL). LOPA is one method used for this purpose. The required SIL of a SIF is derived by taking into account the required risk reduction to be provided by that function. IEC 61511 / ISA 84 notes that this is best accomplished as part of a process hazards and risk analysis (i.e. a PHA) to benefit from possible synergies and the information developed.

LOPA is used to evaluate scenario risk and compare it with risk tolerance criteria to decide if existing safeguards are adequate, and if additional safeguards are needed. Without risk tolerance criteria, there is a tendency to keep adding safeguards in the belief the more the safer. This can be a false assumption. Eventually safeguards will be added that are unnecessary and may add complexity that can result in new unidentified hazard scenarios. LOPA helps focus limited resources on the most critical safeguards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
Some people will stand in the rain getting wet and say it's not raining.

Some people will say I've never had a wreck in 30 years, I don't need insurance.

Some people will look at picture evidence and say the belly pan didn't prevent any possible damage to your bike. Those holes torn in the belly pan doesn't prove anything. You may or may not of had any damage anyway.

I know my rain gauge said I've had 3 1/2 inches of rain since yesterday. I'm pretty sure that picture is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
What he meant to say was YES
But this is what he said.



What this calls for is a LOPA.

--

LOPA is a simplified form of risk assessment. It assists in compliance with PSM and RMP regulations and with the ANSI/ISA S84.00.01-2004 / IEC 61511 standards, Functional Safety: Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector.

LOPA is often used as an extension of process hazard analysis (PHA). PHA teams use engineering judgment to decide if additional safeguards are needed to protect against accident scenarios they identify. This subjective approach can lead to disagreements and possibly inappropriate measures to reduce risk. A more rational and objective approach is needed, at least when considering risk remediation measures for high risk scenarios or those that are expensive to implement. Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) was developed for this purpose.

LOPA is also used to comply with the IEC 61511 / ISA 84 standards. IEC 61511 / ISA 84 requires the allocation of safety functions to protection layers, the determination of required Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) and the determination of their Safety Integrity Levels (SIL). LOPA is one method used for this purpose. The required SIL of a SIF is derived by taking into account the required risk reduction to be provided by that function. IEC 61511 / ISA 84 notes that this is best accomplished as part of a process hazards and risk analysis (i.e. a PHA) to benefit from possible synergies and the information developed.

LOPA is used to evaluate scenario risk and compare it with risk tolerance criteria to decide if existing safeguards are adequate, and if additional safeguards are needed. Without risk tolerance criteria, there is a tendency to keep adding safeguards in the belief the more the safer. This can be a false assumption. Eventually safeguards will be added that are unnecessary and may add complexity that can result in new unidentified hazard scenarios. LOPA helps focus limited resources on the most critical safeguards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
All I meant was some people, shall we say, use a lot more words to say something than they really have to.
we know who you are, or was that we know who I am? LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
Engineers will argue about belly pans (and the like) all day long...

A LOPA is management's way of getting them to begrudgingly agree on whether it's a reasonable precaution or overkill, and then get the bleep back to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Engineers will argue about belly pans (and the like) all day long...

A LOPA is management's way of getting them to begrudgingly agree on whether it's a reasonable precaution or overkill, and then get the bleep back to work.
Oh! Now I get it - not bullsh*t - Why didn't you say so in the first place? Decision by committee. That's how corporate middle-managers and goverment bureaucrats have such great reputations! Kind of like when everybody stops production, and spends the day cleaning everything in sight, for a corporate walk through (that ends up being postponed). I just didn't understand the high minded reasoning - I'll go buy a belly pan now!
(You never know when I might go "Off Roading" with my Goldwing)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
(You never know when I might go "Off Roading" with my Goldwing)
Actually, have to admit - one time, Wifey & I were putting through a neighborhood. We were "Rubbernecking" and not watching the road ahead of us - ran over a speed bump. Had to stop bike (don't remember if it was Nomad or Goldwing) and check for damage. Scraped bottom of aluminum crankcase, but no crack. I think it was more the need to pay attention than the need for a skid plate, but there you go - I'll give up that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
(You never know when I might go "Off Roading" with my Goldwing)
Ok if it's fessing up time, I ripped the belly pan and tore holes in it coming out of a Harley Davidson dealership parking lot of all places! Maybe the GW was trying to tell me something. Or maybe the HD place was sending a message?! You never know where you might get bit!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
Ok if it's fessing up time, I ripped the belly pan and tore holes in it coming out of a Harley Davidson dealership parking lot of all places! Maybe the GW was trying to tell me something. Or maybe the HD place was sending a message?! You never know where you might get bit!
I believe the "belly pan" sits a little lower than the bottom of the engine.

Would what hit the "belly pan" have hit the bottom of the engine..? Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on how much ground clearance was available

Just because something hits the "belly pan" does not definitely mean it would have hit the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
Just because something hits the "belly pan" does not definitely mean it would have hit the engine.
Did you see my pictures? Pretty sure the belly pan being a little higher would not have saved the belly pan and most probably the bike a wicked strike. It was a good belly pan and it ripped it and tore it up. I really believe it took a lot of the impact from the bottom of the engine. The belly pan did for me exactly what I wanted to do. Well worth the money to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I have personally seen one oul filter destroyed with out pan wasn’t my motorcycle was friends was night time he hit something that was on road. So i havve one and still don’t by theis bs can’t check pressure check coolant they did mine didn’t have remove whole thing besides. Ot hard to remove at all
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I wanted to agree but thought better of it so I'll say I agree but will always be skeptical if there was about the information supplied or not.
There! Glad I could clarify the fact or not.
Oh yes, I have a metallic, lower unit, two piece, protective device.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
A stainless steel (SS) belly pan was the first accessory that I added to our '06 that was already loaded with accessories when we bought it used. Why? Because I hit a stick in the road not long after we bought it. I looked under the bike when I got home to discover that there was a gouge in the flimsy piece of padded foil under the over flow tank. I though of all the places to put a piece of plastic that under the bike was probably not the best place for it. I got the same type 2 piece louvered one that Tisunac has. Y'all can argue amongst yourselves all you want. SS is thicker and stronger than plastic! Also, I really think it helps in cross wind stability too! I'm double dark too! Take that! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Helps in cross winds, now that is funny. I have one on my 2002 wing. I took it off 2 days ago when I notice some oil accumulation on the inside of the pan. I did my oil change and did a 340 mile day trip. Without the belly pan, I did not notice any difference in handling, even in a stiff cross wind. I will reinstall the pan when I get new acorn nuts and those special washers. I also have to replace a broken stud bolt that I broke years ago by over tightening one of the acorn nuts. I have one small dent on the belly pan. Having it on probably didn't prevent engine damage. Having the pan on gives me aw warm fuzzy feeling. Necessity? No but extra insurance? Yes.
 
41 - 60 of 64 Posts
Top