Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apparatus Growth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rmcatee1
    replied
    Originally posted by Command6 View Post
    Most items have already been covered, but for a comprehensive list:

    1) Safety improvements

    2) Reduced fleet size and staffing

    3) Keeping up with the Jones's

    4) New technology: Gas detectors, AED's, Thermal imagers, combi tools, ect.

    5) Emissions requirements

    6) The perceived need to carry "Stuff" you might use once every 10 years.

    7) NFPA.

    8) FMVSS.

    The standard FD pump should be: nimble, agile, and user friendly.

    A FD pumper should not be a lumbering albatross

    C6
    C6 is right on the money. I sold apparatus for quite a few years starting in the early 90's. Then, departments were looking for apparatus that was agile and could move around in tighter places. When I left sales a few years ago, I had sold a "rescue/pumper/tanker" to many volunteer departments. These machines as you can imagine were huge..... Departments didn't know if they would have funding for another piece of apparatus so they put all of their eggs in one basket.

    Leave a comment:


  • Command6
    replied
    Most items have already been covered, but for a comprehensive list:

    1) Safety improvements

    2) Reduced fleet size and staffing

    3) Keeping up with the Jones's

    4) New technology: Gas detectors, AED's, Thermal imagers, combi tools, ect.

    5) Emissions requirements

    6) The perceived need to carry "Stuff" you might use once every 10 years.

    7) NFPA.

    8) FMVSS.

    The standard FD pump should be: nimble, agile, and user friendly.

    A FD pumper should not be a lumbering albatross

    C6

    Leave a comment:


  • don120
    replied
    Originally posted by Tim1118 View Post
    Expanding on what Firemech1 said... I think lower staffing, and knowledge of available funding (and future projections) are also a contributor. Knowing that you only have the manpower to get one rig out the door before requesting mutual aid will make you want to have more equipment on that one rig. So, instead of leaving the generator/light tower/etc on the rescue, it goes with the engine.

    As for the rest (going back to your standard engine), I think that safety, reliability, comfort, and ability have all played a major part. Safety devices such as air bags (SRS kind, not lifting bags), ABS and stability control, better suspension configurations, and the like are going to need a little space... and then there's the emissions equipment that is really affecting cab sizes. Motors themselves are bigger because we tend to use more horsepower today to climb hills and drive our pumps, then add the heavier drive line that the additional power requires. More space inside the cabs to add comfort on all three axis, bigger compartments to hold the larger fans/rescue tools/specialized equipment. It seems like steadily each year, we go a little further with the rig-spec than we did last time, adding something in a few areas. Over time, all the little things we've added, have turned into a much larger truck.

    I suppose the summary to this novel is, all of the equipment additions, all of the hose/water/foam/fuel/crew capacity increases, coupled with the power/emissions/strength/NFPA/DOT requirements, have made our trucks what they are today.

    NO it's just because bigger is better...didn't you know that....

    I've just retired after 32 years..90-95% of the fires I went to were put out with less than 100 gallons out water.

    Why so many are building trucks for that 1 in lifetime fire, god only knows.

    Leave a comment:


  • FFWALT
    replied
    When it comes to design, I consider every apparatus a box. The size of the box dictates what you can put in it. If you want more compartment space, or a larger tank, or a light tower, etc you either have to give something up or get a bigger box. I understand that.
    I also understand that tactics have changed due to how our fire loads have changed. When our 1972 Mack was delivered it had a two stage pump and dual 1" reels and that's how they fought fire at that time. It was modified slightly to put preconnects on it. Now last month I spoke to a department in New Mexico and their department is transitioning back to using high pressure pumps and booster lines. I understand that is done quite a bit in different parts of the world and is a topic for another discussion. What I'm looking at is how our tactics have changed.
    Aside from tactics, the number of fires has overall decreased. Because of how our department operates I overlooked the fact that many departments run EMS as well which accounts for the majority of their calls and that again adds to what you need to get in the box.
    Thanks for your input, I was just wondering what other peoples views were.

    FIREMECH, I plan on taking you up on the offer in a couple months.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyChiefGonzo
    replied
    I suppose the summary to this novel is, all of the equipment additions, all of the hose/water/foam/fuel/crew capacity increases, coupled with the power/emissions/strength/NFPA/DOT requirements, have made our trucks what they are today.
    I concur....

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim1118
    replied
    Expanding on what Firemech1 said... I think lower staffing, and knowledge of available funding (and future projections) are also a contributor. Knowing that you only have the manpower to get one rig out the door before requesting mutual aid will make you want to have more equipment on that one rig. So, instead of leaving the generator/light tower/etc on the rescue, it goes with the engine.

    As for the rest (going back to your standard engine), I think that safety, reliability, comfort, and ability have all played a major part. Safety devices such as air bags (SRS kind, not lifting bags), ABS and stability control, better suspension configurations, and the like are going to need a little space... and then there's the emissions equipment that is really affecting cab sizes. Motors themselves are bigger because we tend to use more horsepower today to climb hills and drive our pumps, then add the heavier drive line that the additional power requires. More space inside the cabs to add comfort on all three axis, bigger compartments to hold the larger fans/rescue tools/specialized equipment. It seems like steadily each year, we go a little further with the rig-spec than we did last time, adding something in a few areas. Over time, all the little things we've added, have turned into a much larger truck.

    I suppose the summary to this novel is, all of the equipment additions, all of the hose/water/foam/fuel/crew capacity increases, coupled with the power/emissions/strength/NFPA/DOT requirements, have made our trucks what they are today.

    Leave a comment:


  • FIREMECH1
    replied
    You can't put 6 gallons of water in a 5 gallon jug.

    Now convert that water to equipment, and there's your answer, for simplicity.

    It isn't the industry that is to blame, per say. It is the dept's that are trying to do more, with more specialized equipment and tools that are available now, that wasn't 20, or even 10 yrs ago. Or can now afford to have them. Operations of a standard pumper have also changed, to add to the mix.

    Compartment space and hose amount is pretty much what dictates its length and height anymore. Want more compartment space, and keep or add to your hose lengths, then you have to make it taller or longer, or both.

    Welcome back Walt, long time no see. Invitation still stands.

    FM1

    Leave a comment:


  • FWDbuff
    replied
    Well, certainly cab sizes are increasing due to the tree-hugging engines....

    Leave a comment:


  • FFWALT
    started a topic Apparatus Growth

    Apparatus Growth

    I've been wondering about this one for a while now. Aside from multipurpose rigs (rescue engines/engine tankers, etc), why are apparatus getting larger? I understand that the options you chose will potentially affect the size of the apparatus. I understand that an extended front bumper adds length, I understand that a top mount pump panel adds 24+ inches. For the sake of this discussion we are talking about suppression engines.
    Do you think the increase in size is related to safety requirements (such as enclosed cabs)? Do you think the increase is due to technology? What other theories do you have?
    I think back to our 1972 Mack CF 1250 gpm pumper or consider our 1983 Sutphen 1500 gpm pumper. Both these apparatus are relatively short (< 30') and the Mack is double short (< 9' OAH). Then I think about our relatively newer apparatus, regardless of custom or commercial (obviously the custom is shorter) they are longer and taller, even with the same size tank and basic equipment. They just sit higher. I'm thinking about a 1,500 midship pump, 600 gallon tank, 30 gallon foam, (2) 200' 1 3/4" preconnects, generator and a hose bed capable of 1,500' 5" LDH and 1,000' 3". Any builder can build a short apparatus but usually you are giving something up to get the short length and low height. I'm not looking to debate builders but instead the industry.
    What are your views?

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X