Rowe CAFS

[smokediver6102]

WOW what a nerve I have struck asking for a simple explanation, seems everyone says they build a better mousetrap.

So I did make the six hour trip to visit the ROWE factory, while I was not real impressed with a high tech manufacturing facility I was impressed with the quality in manufacturing, the install that they had just done on a Pierce Contender, the ease of operation and mostly the quality of their foam. It works folks believe it or not. Now is it a bit different than everyone else? Yes, but does that make them wrong? I don't think so. This is good ole competitive manufacturing and competition is good.

I went over their system with a fine tooth comb, I am in no means a CAFS expert at least not yet but please don't knock their system if you have not used it.

I asked the question " If your system is so great why have you not sold more?" His response was I am happy with the quantity that I sell and install now, I have no real desire to grow into something big and I would rather produce fewer, quality systems rather selling in quantity.

In response to my trip I feel confident that ROWE sells a good quality product and I have no question that I would not have a problem with purchasing their system.

Thanks
C. Rice
Asst. Fire Chief
Rives Fire/Rescue

[firepundit]

WOW what a nerve I have struck asking for a simple explanation, seems everyone says they build a better mousetrap.

Don't let them bother you. In your part of the US it is well known that the Rowe system not only works, but works well. Obviously johngageman is not a physics instructor and neiowa has an opinion on everything to the point where he can simply dismiss the opinion of someone who has installed the systems.

Having seen and operated the system first hand you now know the value of the opinions often found in the forums.

[BoxAlarm187]

OK so Rowe asked you defend him. Got it.

Nice unverified accusation to throw at a business owner.

[Johngagemn]

Obviously johngageman is not a physics instructor <snip>

You're right, I'm not a physics professor, but 2 years of college level physics classes and my ability to research, learn, and understand subjects on my own have given me a pretty good working knowledge. Combined with over a decade of experience operating, fighting fire with, servicing, providing technical assistance for, and training fire departments on CAFS, I'm not, by any means, new to this.

I see some people keep referring to "the laws of physics" without ever giving any further information. I love to learn how machinery I have not personally taken apart works, so I would encourage someone to expand on what laws of physics they are referring to. I was very specific with facts in my original post, I have yet to see anyone give me an answer to satisfy any of those questions raised other than "The laws of physics!" and "It works, I swear!".

I would also like to stress: I never said that the system didn't or wouldn't work. I said there were things on the website that would make me ask a lot of technical questions about how the system actually worked:

I'm not saying they can't do what they claim they can, I'm just saying I'm skeptical and would ask a LOT of technical questions. If the answers they give you don't jibe with the answers other folks knowledgeable about CAFS give then it would be cause for concern for the consumer.

I stand by that statement.

And by the way, I still take great umbrage with the statement referring to the balancing systems used by ALL other CAFS manufacturers as "unreliable".

[Rescue101]

You're right, I'm not a physics professor, but 2 years of college level physics classes and my ability to research, learn, and understand subjects on my own have given me a pretty good working knowledge. Combined with over a decade of experience operating, fighting fire with, servicing, providing technical assistance for, and training fire departments on CAFS, I'm not, by any means, new to this.

I see some people keep referring to "the laws of physics" without ever giving any further information. I love to learn how machinery I have not personally taken apart works, so I would encourage someone to expand on what laws of physics they are referring to. I was very specific with facts in my original post, I have yet to see anyone give me an answer to satisfy any of those questions raised other than "The laws of physics!" and "It works, I swear!".

I would also like to stress: I never said that the system didn't or wouldn't work. I said there were things on the website that would make me ask a lot of technical questions about how the system actually worked:



I stand by that statement.

And by the way, I still take great umbrage with the statement referring to the balancing systems used by ALL other CAFS manufacturers as "unreliable".

I USUALLY only pay attention to two laws of Physics. Gravity and Inertia. Seem to be fighting both most of the time,hehe T.C.

[firepundit]

You're right, I'm not a physics professor, but 2 years of college level physics classes and my ability to research, learn, and understand subjects on my own have given me a pretty good working knowledge. Combined with over a decade of experience operating, fighting fire with, servicing, providing technical assistance for, and training fire departments on CAFS, I'm not, by any means, new to this.

I see some people keep referring to "the laws of physics" without ever giving any further information. I love to learn how machinery I have not personally taken apart works, so I would encourage someone to expand on what laws of physics they are referring to. I was very specific with facts in my original post, I have yet to see anyone give me an answer to satisfy any of those questions raised other than "The laws of physics!" and "It works, I swear!".

It took all of 5 minutes to find the patent application where the phsysics for the system are explained. I don't see where it is anyone's responsibility on this forum to explain them to you when you were the one that brought the subject up while you were commenting on a competitors product. Yes, you did a good job of explaining the physics of the system YOU represent but, that does not prove that your company's way of making CAFS is the only viable method. The Rowe system works and hundreds of their customers know it. You don't do yourself or Waterous any good by suggesting otherwise.

Perhaps you should ask Mike Waldock (sp?) about the propriety of making unfounded comments about a competitor's product in a public forum. I didn't realize that he took all of the class that Waterous had with him when he retired.

[firepundit]

Nice unverified accusation to throw at a business owner.

Yeah. A business owner who advertises in Firehouse magazine and helps make this forum possible so people can fling crap at him.

[Johngagemn]

It took all of 5 minutes to find the patent application where the phsysics for the system are explained. I don't see where it is anyone's responsibility on this forum to explain them to you when you were the one that brought the subject up while you were commenting on a competitors product. Yes, you did a good job of explaining the physics of the system YOU represent but, that does not prove that your company's way of making CAFS is the only viable method. The Rowe system works and hundreds of their customers know it. You don't do yourself or Waterous any good by suggesting otherwise.

Perhaps you should ask Mike Waldock (sp?) about the propriety of making unfounded comments about a competitor's product in a public forum. I didn't realize that he took all of the class that Waterous had with him when he retired.

Whoa, man, where is all of this hostility coming from?

First and foremost, let me say that I'm am on this forum only as myself, I'm not here "on the clock" to try to push or sell any product from any company. I thought I had made that abundantly clear, but if I didn't, hopefully I have done so now. I never said that one kind of system was the only way to do something, there's almost always more than one way to skin a cat. Physics, on the other hand, is what it is, regardless of whose machinery is involved.

Second, allow me to say this for the third time: I did not say or suggest anywhere here in this forum, nor anywhere else in print, in person, mental telepathy, smoke signal, sign language, or in electrons on a screen, that the Rowe system did not work. I believe I have, in fact, very explicitly stated that I was not saying that it did or did not work. What I did say is that what I read on their website would make me ask questions. I suggested the OP, who was interested in the system, ask questions of the folks at Rowe, and suggested they seek out other sources of knowledge about CAFS as well. I'm sure that the folks at Rowe, just like those at any manufacturer, encourage their customers to ask questions about how the system works.

By the way, thank you for the prompter to remind me to do a patent search. I'm not sure how I missed the patent numbers on the website the first time around. I did some reading on those patents earlier today, and actually I have a bunch more questions now, LOL. Just stuff that's purely from a gearhead perspective, nothing that most would find interesting.

Apparently some people are reading something Machiavellian into what I've said, I'm sorry if that's how you're perceiving it, but that is not how any of it was intended. The point I was making, apparently unsuccessfully, was that everything out there is buyer beware, regardless of who makes it. Ask questions, do a lot of research, compare all of the things available on the market, then get the one that will work the best for what you require of it.

Once again, I'm not here to toss a sales pitch at anyone or sit here and stump for any brand or product. Personally, I find it distasteful when people start firing off a hard sales pitch in these kind of forums. It's one thing to comment on the benefits of one's own flavor of whatever or to provide technical info on how something works, it's quite another to say "mine is the only one that's worth a damn and it's the only thing anyone should buy". My only reason for being a part of this forum is to be available to provide insight into things that fall into my areas of expertise. That, and I've met some interesting people here.

And above all else: stay safe out there.

[Johngagemn]

Oh yeah, almost forgot, I play in a golf league with Mike and he still stops by the office on occasion. If you want, PM me your contact info and I'll be happy to pass it along to him.

[FIREMECH1]

Window lickers can't read.

FM1

[Rescue101]

Window lickers can't read.

FM1

And YOU would know this HOW? Hehe T.C.

[helicopter722]

Did anyone read Rowes website????

In Reply to Johngagemn:

I am a Firefighter, a fire truck manufacturer & a CAFS tactics Instructor. I do not build CAFS systems. I ONLY use the Rowe CAFS System on my trucks. The comments you made about the Rowe CAFS System were 100% wrong, totally off base, not even close to the correct answer. You need to educate yourself before you make these kinds of comments.

Four basic ingredients are needed to produce CAFS: a water pump, a foam injection system, an air supply system, and a CAFS system. The failure of any of these four components eliminates CAFS capability. Of the four required components, the most difficult process happens in the CAFS system. Every manufacturer has a different approach to the problem of putting compressed air and foam solution together for scrubbing including balancing valves, springs, and computers with sensors. All of which have the potential to break at many different points causing the entire system to fail. I have in the past refused to put a CAFS system on any of my trucks because of this very reason. When a fire department is looking to purchase a CAFS system it must consider five major points: user-friendliness, maintenance, reliability, cost, and trustworthiness. The Rowe Equalizer eliminates these problems with simple physics. It has no moving parts, computers or regulators. I know the Rowe system can answer each of these five considerations. A rookie can be taught to operate the system in one minute. Out of all of the systems installed on the fire trucks I build, there has not been one, with the Rowe CAFS system, fail. Nor have I ever known any other truck, with the Rowe CAFS system on it, fail. It is possible to put out more fire with 400 gallons of water and a CAFS system than it is to put out the same fire with 4000 gallons of water only when using the correct tactics. Finally, the system carries a lifetime warranty. What more do you need to say?

I don’t know how much damage was done to Mr. Rowe by your comment, but I feel you owe him an apology. I know of no one that he has misled, speaking from my own experience. I consider him a very knowledgeable person. Now if for some reason Mr. Rowe would refuse to sell me his CAFS System, I would cease to offer CAFS on the trucks I build. If a department insisted on having another CAFS System, besides Rowe’s, put on their truck, I would refuse to build their truck. I have done it in the past and would do it in the future. I would refer them to another manufacturer. This will continue to be my policy unless, in the future, another CAFS Systems better than Rowe’s is developed (I don’t think this can be accomplished.)

In a nutshell, as a Firefighter, a manufacturer, and a CAFS tactics instructor, I do all of my demos with my initial attack being with the Rowe CAFS system, because I trust this system. My theory is there is always a better way to build my fire trucks and I am continuously looking for it.

Greg Blanchat
Blanchat Mfg., Inc.

So Greg , What you know about water pumps?
Lets see, Rowe buys a HALE pump end from HALE and uses the same motor HALE uses and POW,ZAM,BAM,BOOM-MAGIC- it produces almost 100 gpm better performance!

I think everyone had better be asking alot of questions about this company. It sounds iffy.

[firepundit]

Whoa, man, where is all of this hostility coming from?

I owe you an apology. I am sorry about the "class" crack. It was out of line.

Also, I am sorry for bringing Mike into the discussion. Not many people can come close to the man when class is an issue. Knowing that both Rowe and Blanchat use Hale pumps I could only think of what the Waterous rep would have to go through on his next sales call at those two companies. I didn't think Mike would have been happy. (It's that loyalty thingy. My heart is with Waterous even though I think Hale and Darley make good products.)

Your posts on this forum have always been informative and you have always been forthright with your thoughts. In fact, I watch for your posts. Hopefully, my over-reaction will not slow you down.

Again, I am sorry for over-reacting.

[FIREMECH1]

And YOU would know this HOW? Hehe T.C.

Well, from YOU, of course.

Easy Bro, we're on the same side. LOL

FM1

[helicopter722]

Credibility problem

So is anyone looking at rowes apparent credibility issue on the HALE pump thing?
I find this hillarious. You guys come out of the woodwork to defend him, then when something sounds cleary fishy, where are you guys? How does he make the pumps do what HALE can't. I am goin to call the HALE factory guy for his area monday to find out. This is too funny.

And his equalizer isnt that revolutionary. Its a static mixer. Its not that hard to design one without getting in to his patent. And everything he sent me show the ELECTRIC controller instead of manual. So no benefit over systems with balanced valves or electronic controls. His is the same. Says most they sell have electronic controller.

So whats the sales argument now?

Not sayin its bad. just sayn they arent that great or better than anybody else.

Personally I have trained 100's of classes with cafs. I have worked with both Pnuemax and Hale systems as well as the portable guys like CET and Snuffer.
I have also used the Rowe system. They are all pretty much the same with minor differences. Its the service and knowledge and or credibility of the saleman and company involved.

Good Luck