Ahmen, Cap'n. There is no replacement for good training and management.

There is no question about safety being #1 consideration when operating machinery. Both of the operator and the pedestrian.
The most important component in the safe use of a forklift is the operator.
I have a problem with safety a system that takes the decision making process away from the driver.
There is no substitute for a properly trained and experienced operator.
Call me old fashioned....

sorry guys Huster....is suppose to be Hyster..........

Bottom Line guys.........there is NO device that is going to prevent all lateral roll-overs. It comes down to lift truck operators that receive the proper training, knowledge and experience and that are willing to take safety to the next level. It does not matter if you are a Toyota guy, a Huster guy, a Cat guy....what matters is...........Safety is JOB #1.

Be safe out there.........

All the systems in the world, even with redundant safety systems, will fail when a human is in control. Forklifts last on average 8 years, operate many hours a day, in harsh environments and abusive use. Then add on the variance of maintenance quality and there will be failures. In the end it comes down to the judgement of the driver. THere is only one true safe product and that is a robot, in a closed room with no people around.

These systems are a good attempt at making things safer. Accelrometers and other electronics though will fail when bounced enough, not kept in calibration, or just plain fail. How long does your laptop last? Calibration and testing of them is a requirement.

Don't forget users will bypass them - they aren't stupid - somehow - when they think they "get in the way" or "slow" them down.

How many "dead man" swothes have you seen bypassed?

All the systems in the world, even with redundant safety systems, will fail when a human is in control. Forklifts last on average 8 years, operate many hours a day, in harsh environments and abusive use. Then add on the variance of maintenance quality and there will be failures. In the end it comes down to the judgement of the driver. THere is only one true safe product and that is a robot, in a closed room with no people around.

These systems are a good attempt at making things safer. Accelrometers and other electronics though will fail when bounced enough, not kept in calibration, or just plain fail. How long does your laptop last? Calibration and testing of them is a requirement.

Don't forget users will bypass them - they aren't stupid - somehow - when they think they "get in the way" or "slow" them down.

How many "dead man" swothes have you seen bypassed?

There is one other player in the top 5 that has a system to reduce the potential of truck overturning.
There was no fanfare when it was introduced for reasons made obvious since the SAS was introduced.

the "patent" comment was meant to be sarcastic. i just get a little out of sorts when people who are not familiar with a product or system but have heard someone else's negative "sales propaganda" and comment as if they have intimate knowledge. i have not seen any actual negative commenting here that wasn't accompanied by the introduction of another product or sounded like a competitors talking points. yes i am a Toyota guy, yes i like the product i represent but if there were no benefits from the SAS system there would not be so many Toyotas out there. spit out the sour grapes and move on.

toyzilla,
in the mid 1970's, Allis Chalmers & Yale both developed somewhat of similar system for Ford Motor Co - it was called and inch lb over load device. Basically, this device measured the deflect of an extension of one of the tilt cylinder pins. The devise would prevent the operator from lifting a load above the rated capacity, prevent a rated capacity load from being tilted forward. It was fitted to both electric & ICE forklifts. It had issues but did what it was supposed to. But the biggest issue was the UAW drivers that didn't like it - hard to fix that. Fully realize that
The biggest issue any manufactuer faces when one makes a safety related systems standardd and then later tries to remove it for cost considerations - like to be competitive in a satur- lawyers have fun with those situations - like trying to remain cost competitive in a saturated & in my opionion stagnate growth market like fork lifts that has an abundance of competitors & more coming into it..
So it is simple, they don't elect to do it.
Also part of the SAS system is the fork leveling system - seems that feature is commonly available thru Cascade - no Toyota patented or proprietary feature there - what happened???

no lost lit's directly related to SAS. it's a system to make you "safer" not "SAFE". nothing is idiot proof and the service interval is the PM interval. no one else has it because they havn't figured out a way to do it without infringing on the patent rights. why is every one so down on a system that "improves" not "guarantees" the operators safety level. i think it's sour grapes and wallet envy.

No one else makes this system becasue it's not fail proof. Ask you guy how many litigations they lost becasue of SAS. If it were that good, everyone would have it. Also, there is a mandatory inspection to be performed at your cost every, I think, 150 hours. Also, it's very exspensive to replace and repair. That system is about $3,200 USD plus labor. Bottom line, there is no substitute for common sense. Spend the extra money and hire a responsible driver, that money is a far better investment than that system. Don't be sold, be educated.

I was a Toyota guy and think the SAS system is a good idea. The steer axle lock cylinder is the weak part in the system and should be checked during PMs. I also wish it had a faster reaction time on the seven series.

yotaguy, come on man. i am a toyota guy too and have a lot of years with them. EVERYTHING breaks at some point. not a lot of common failures but not impervious to defects. lighten up dude!!! being proud of your product you represent is great but "talking out the butt" is that something that requires practice??

Yotaguy - I guess Toyota just shipped your dealer & customers all the good ones because your closer to the plant in Indiana. But in Georgia I found customers & prospects that had issues with the SAS system - steering lock up after a turn was completed for one. Maybe the just take the beating of the longer over the road drive to Georgia.

I was a Toyota technician for 5 years before going into sales and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER had a problem with SAS unless the customer damaged they system. The warranty rate is non-existent on this system and it just works. Anyone who says otherwise is talking out their butt...

When used properly, SAS increases productivity, period. SAS is not an idiot-proofer. It will not allow you to use the machine outside of its operational limits.
Whenever you set up the SAS system, you have to allow the computer to record "Tare Weight" so that the pressure transducer knows how much the carriage weighs empty. It calculates the operational limits (threshold value) based on this tare weight. This means, If you decide to remove the forks and install a craneboom, you have to re-calibrate the SAS. This can be done with a simple procedure that does not require a handset or any special tools. As long as you remain within the capacity limits and the derate limits of the attachment based on the load centre of gravity, SAS will limit loaded forward tilt angle to safe operational limits. SAS controls the mast by slowing-down rearward tilt speed to ONE VALUE, and controls forward loaded tilt angle to ONE VALUE if the load on the forks exceeds 60% of rated capacity. It does not calculate and infinitely vary the forward loaded tilt angle or backward tilt speed based on load, it has one threshold pressure at which it engages the fixed mast controls.
For this reason, the attachment weight cannot be too close to this threshold value. Listed attachment weight limits for the 7 series truck are as follows:
At 157.5" or less max lift height, 3.5 ton: 3087lbs, 4-5 ton: 3308lbs.
At 169-197" max lift height, 3.5 ton: 2205lbs, 4-5 ton: 3308lbs.
At 216.5-256" max lift height, 3.5 ton: 2205lbs, 4 ton: 2646lbs, 4.5-5 ton: 3308lbs.

Did someone run over your foot with a Toyota? ALL technology is "fallable" and the fact that Toyota is the #1 class 4 and 5 truck in the world must mean they do something right. SAS is a tool and tools are only as good as the human using them but this "TOOL" can lower the cost of insurance in some applications

SAS is an expensive gimmick. It may be useful in 'best of' situations but is very prone to sensor failure.
Toyota agents will maintain it during warranty but once out of warranty many companies just turn it off because of its cost to replace or repair.
Over rough ground it is a major pain in the *** as it keeps thinking the forklift is unstable. Timber yards beware; this is not the system for you.
In factory and warehouse situations where several brands may be operating; SAS gives a false sense of security as operators tend to drive all machines the same way. Even on a Toyota with SAS, if a sensor fails (and they do often fail), the computer can have its data thrown out of whack and the forklift becomes less safe.
I've heard Toyota agents say the system can monitor extended load lengths but none have been able to tell me how. On a 2.5 tonne truck, if the system still allows you to lift a 2.5 tonne load at say 900mm load centres, the machine is definitely NOT safe. Ditto with a full load under brakes.
Rather than go down the SAS route where clients rely on fallible technology for safety, it is better to build a forklift with a low C of G and install a system like Speedshield to help control and monitor operation.
In the end, if a company thinks that SAS is keeping them safe, they are going to end up disappointed or worse.

Can't say I do.

Can't say I do.