Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pierce's New Velocity And Impel Chasis

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by sven73
    You can continue to order a Dash, Lance, Enforcer or Saber up to the point that Pierce can no longer supply 2006 engines. After that it is the Custom Contender, Impel, Velocity, Arrow and Quantum. The Saber, Enforcer, Dash and Lance will not be available.

    In order to qualify as a 2006 engine the EPA has specified that the crank must be installed in the block before the end of the day on 12/31 or at least that is what I understand.

    As I said in my earlier post the standard door mounted mirrors that we are all familar with are available on the new chassis. But before you close the books on these new ones you should at least try them once.
    Is the custom contender going to be built on the " Impel " chassis cab when they dump the " Saber " because it is more of a bare bones cab with a smaller engine & trans ?
    Last edited by NewJerseyFFII; 09-16-2006, 12:36 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      I have a question....

      If the noses on the Velocity and Impel are to accomodate 2007 engines, why doesn't the Arrow XT need a "nose job" as well?

      Also - does anybody know if the new chassis are still 96"?

      Comment


      • #63
        New Chassis' are 100".

        Chassis less desirable than previous models on the exterior, YES. Would I have designed its outward appearance differently, YES. Do I take outward appearance into consideration when purchasing, NO.

        Would I buy a Velocity, YES (especially if the multiplex is an option).
        Do I think it has better design than other current models, YES. Would I buy the Velocity over the Arrow XT, I'll let you know after I see it in person this week.

        From a previous comment, would a traditional "Heartland" department purchase one of these "Space Ships", you bet. If I don't purchase a more user friendly and safer apparatus because of its outward appearance, then I probably shouldn't be tasked with the responsibility of apparatus purchasing, because my priorities are obviously in need of realignment.

        My .02 cents

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by oldestwiseowl
          FDNY is going to obtain 100 new 2000 gpm 2-stage pumpers over 4 years starting with an order of 30. DO NOT expect them to order 30 of these odd-looking spacecraft.
          hasnt ferrara already deliveredseveral of these? I wouldnt really expect fdny to go pierce, even though they ordered one rescue. you didnt see them go e-one after ordering the last rescues.

          Comment


          • #65
            they had too change

            Pierce had to change the Dash/Lance/Enforcer because of the new engines. The Saber will not be replaced til 2010. Believe me, they didn't want to replace their 2 best selling trucks. You can thank Uncle Sam for that one! As for why the new trucks look the way they do, alot of that has to do with how they are built. The new front end and doors saves build time. There aren't any welds on those doors. The new roof is suppose to be leak proof. And like the Dash/Enforcers, the new trucks are built on the same fixture. Time will tell.
            As for why the Quantum and Arrow weren't affected. The Arrow was being designed when they new about the engine changes, so they took that into account. The quantum only needed a few changes to the tunnel because it sits so high already.
            If you really want to get a Dash/Lance or an Enforcer you had better order now. They stocked up on th 06 engines, but when they are gone...so are those chassis.

            Comment


            • #66
              Much more room!

              I just got home from FRI. On Saturday I was able to get back to the Pierce both and get into the Velocity and Impel. I found that both had far more room in the officer and drivers seats than the Dash chassis that I ride on now. The rear seat area seemed to have more room than the Quantum (if that is possible). The floors were flat all the way to the doors with no step wells. It was easier to climb in and out than in the Dash. It appears that the nose was pushed out to allow the fluids to be checked and filled (it had a short lift up hood) without having to tilt the cab and to give the driver and officer more leg room. I do like all the extra room. I will take the room over the looks. I think it will grow on me.

              Comment


              • #67
                ummmmmm they did and called it the pierce arrow xt.. and the command zone it shows them as options of both chassis so I would assume if you dont want it you dont have to order it.
                Ummm, I'm aware of that, and have even discussed it previously in this thread. Thanks for stating something that I have already replied to. Thank you for being a wise ***.

                The multiplex electrical systems are coming as "standard items". I don't care to have yet another computer on the fire apparatus when it's not needed. The fire service shouldn't have to order a conventional "normal" wiring system. If you want the multiplexed system, allow them to switch over to that at no cost, BUT MAKE IT AN OPTION. NOT STANDARD. You shouldn't have to pay for the non computerized systems.

                If the automotive industry can have such a high "success rate" , as well as the airlines, why do so many people have issues with the multiplexing in the fire apparatus? Not enough time spent developing it? Not enough money put into R&D? Why don't we hear about planes falling out of the air when their electrical system fails? Why can't "we" get it right, but they can?

                Until they get it right, keep it away from my guys. Hell, the apparatus manufacturers couldn't even get our load manager right, not to mention the inverter and other electrical components. Oh, I better stop there... Don't need any other phone calls from said manufacturer because I spoke out against their product...
                Originally posted by ThNozzleMan
                Why? Because we are firemen. We are decent human beings. We would be compelled by the overwhelming impulse to save an innocent child from a tragic, painful death because in the end, we are MEN.

                I A C O J
                FTM-PTB


                Honorary Disclaimer: While I am a manufacturer representative, I am not here to sell my product. Any advice or knowledge shared is for informational purposes only. I do not use Firehouse.Com for promotional purposes.

                Comment


                • #68
                  [QUOTE=Res343cue]Ummm, I'm aware of that, and have even discussed it previously in this thread. Thanks for stating something that I have already replied to. Thank you for being a wise ***.

                  anytime, but wasnt trying to be.....just figuring you would have seen that on pierce's web site before you posted the first time.
                  Last edited by firetdriver99; 09-18-2006, 06:28 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Res343cue
                    Ummm, I'm aware of that, and have even discussed it previously in this thread. Thanks for stating something that I have already replied to. Thank you for being a wise ***.

                    The multiplex electrical systems are coming as "standard items". I don't care to have yet another computer on the fire apparatus when it's not needed. The fire service shouldn't have to order a conventional "normal" wiring system. If you want the multiplexed system, allow them to switch over to that at no cost, BUT MAKE IT AN OPTION. NOT STANDARD. You shouldn't have to pay for the non computerized systems.

                    If the automotive industry can have such a high "success rate" , as well as the airlines, why do so many people have issues with the multiplexing in the fire apparatus? Not enough time spent developing it? Not enough money put into R&D? Why don't we hear about planes falling out of the air when their electrical system fails? Why can't "we" get it right, but they can?

                    Until they get it right, keep it away from my guys. Hell, the apparatus manufacturers couldn't even get our load manager right, not to mention the inverter and other electrical components. Oh, I better stop there... Don't need any other phone calls from said manufacturer because I spoke out against their product...
                    No offense, because I know you're still very young and impressionable and probably don't even drive the trucks yet, much less have ever really worked on them...but just because a few naysayers or detractors have badmouthed multiplexing doesn't make it "unreliable" or whatever else you think it is. Nor do a few reported cases of trouble out of thousands of delivered and in service trucks. Naturally you'll almost always hear the negative complaints the loudest, because those who have a trouble free truck have no reason to be vocal about it unless asked. People aren't exactly going to make threads about "Our multiplexed truck we got in 2002 works great still!", but if there's just one glitch that they even THINK is related to the system, I'll bet they'll be running their mouth about it pretty quickly.

                    The thing is, our trucks have been computerized to some degree for years now. There hasn't been an actual throttle cable from the accelerator pedal or pump panel to the engine, for example, for well over a decade. It's all electronic. Same goes for most pump discharge relief valves. Pierce trucks have had the Command Zone system in some form since the early 90s.

                    Almost every manufacturer is moving towards multiplexing, and it's here to stay. I remember just a few short years ago when Pierce was taking flack for multiplexing not just the chassis, but the aerial controls as well. When we were spec'ing our midmount platform, all the other manufacturers we looked at (which was ALL of them at the time) could do was badmouth the multiplexing. Sounded very much like your posts, the whole "regular wires and hydraulic lines were good enough for 100 years, we don't need that garbage!" Flash forward 5 years and guess what? Yep, they're now ALL multiplexed to some degree.

                    All I'm saying is that you're entitled to your opinion on the whole thing, obviously...but for someone so young it's a shame hearing you repeat what you've heard from others without actually having much firsthand knowledge of the systems and components.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Multiplexing and Technology in General

                      Chauffeur6's comments are well taken. Computer operated diesel engines have over 20 years of very successful operation. The thing that drove electronics in the first place was the EPA. Emissions requirements coming in at the time could not be met with the the old fuel systems.

                      When computer controls first started to appear, many people in the trucking industry, especially maintenance people were up in arms about it. No one short of an electronics engineer would be able to work on them was the outcry. And there were some problems, even today there are some.

                      But the problems pale in comparison to the successes. Trouble is, that when an engine has a problem it can be a real headache. Us old timers who grew up before computers and electronic controls aren't culturally prepared to deal with them. We're accustomed to wires that you can follow and fuel lines that you can see. If it doesn't crank, its electrical. If it cranks but doesn't start, it's fuel. You decide which it is, find where it is and follow it till you find where it isn't. It's ingrained in us. Our thought processes aren't prepared to deal with the multitude of sensors and controls, any one of which can shut you down.

                      The flip side of it is this: Computer controlling of the fuel injection process is probably the reason why we're able to squeeze so much more power and performance out of the smaller engines today. I'm fond of saying, "Ain't no substitute for cubic inches" and to an to an extent, it's still true. But what's being gotten out of the smaller engines is, to me, just mind-boggling. Who among us would ever have thought that we'd be seeing 400+ horsepower out of less than 600 cubic inches?

                      Multiplexed electrical systems are an extension of it. They're pretty much standard on highway trucks, and as C6 and others point out, they're going to be standard on fire trucks, too. And what you'll be able to do will be just as mind-blowing.

                      Here's what scares me: The technology, both in engine electronics and in multiplexing is advancing so rapidly that systems become obsolete before they're worn out. That's doubly true with us. Example: Our 2006/7 Spartan/Toyne will be replacing a '78 Hahn. The Hahn has a 6-71 Detroit Diesel engine in it. There were millions of those engines built and used in every imaginable application from boats to cranes to railroad locomotives to stationary gen sets to whatever.

                      Anyplace you needed a diesel engine, you'd find a two-stroke Detroit screaming away. And they'll be around for years to come. But they've pretty much vanished from the highway. If I need parts or if I need service beyond what I can do myself, I have to start hoping. Hope that Detroit still makes it (they do, and if they don't, Korody-Collyer does), that Penn DDA still stocks it and that their two-cycle guys haven't all retired.

                      Point is, we (execpt for the major cities) tend to keep our vehicles for a long time. Our turnover cycle historically was 20 years. But the technology of computers and electronics advances so rapidly, and along with it, the skills,
                      procedures and test equipment.

                      That Hahn is showing its age at 28 years, but iis still in decent shape. The '68 Hahn that we had went 21 years and was still mechanically sound, but the body was disintegrating. The '58 FWD (the one that FWDbuff now owns) that the '78 Hahn replaced was very tired and desparately in need of help (it got it). The engine in the '48 Ward La France that was replaced by the '68 Hahn blew up before the company that bought it got it out of Pennsylvania. And the '37 Ford/Hale that was replaced by the '58 FWD, well, getting it to start was a challenge. Our current and first out '89 Duplex/Quality (6V92TA), despite what FWDbuff thinks of it, will be around for quite a few more years.

                      If you're following the pattern that I've been developing, each of our newer trucks has far outlasted the one that went before it. If that trend continues, how long will the Spartan/Toyne go, especially with its stainless steel body and engine with a million mile B50 life? But where will technology be by then? How soon will our J1939 (right now, the latest, greatest) data bus on the C13 Cat be ancient history. When did DDEC first appear and what generation of it are we into already?

                      Those are some of the challenges that I see ahead. And while you're at it, go read some of the trucking industry trade press about the technician (mechanics, to us) shortage.

                      Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Chauffer6,

                        No offense taken. My opinion on the multiplexing comes from an event where the multiplexed system decided that it didn't like itself, and essentially committed suicide at an incident. Thank god that the company wasn't being used for primary attack, or for being the #1 aerial on the fire, etc. Ever since that, I've been a little leery of the system. Every manufacturer has it's problems, as well as having their specialties. I just think they all need a little more time to develop the multiplexing systems before we're putting our lives on the line for them. Granted, the failure rate for such events must be one out of every few hundred or somewhere close to that.

                        One other big 'problem' that comes to mind, is with an F550 that's fairly local to me. As soon as you park on scene, the rig idles up to maintain itself. After about sitting for five minutes, it goes up another 500 RPM, and then after a minute, another 500, all the way until it redlines the motor and it shuts itself down. Ford said that it was an alternator, now it was the computer, now it's the body manufacturers fault. Guess what? The truck still doesn't work right.

                        I'm not even a fan of the load managers on " a departments " apparatus now. Granted, I have no idea if it's the load manager that has all the problems, or the installation and service "they" receive from the company. Can't say names, they start calling Fire Chiefs again. One of these load managers is the excuse now for Ford to complain about the motor problem on "their" rescue. Convenient eh?

                        Working around computers as often as I do, I'm not a fan of having them in control of our pumps or aerials with us just pushing buttons. It's a safety issue in my mind. We've had problems with one of our new pumper's throttle control. You could keep turning and turning, and turn it some more, but it wouldn't increase the pressure or engine RPMs. One of the sensors that digitized the input from the throttle was dead. I'm glad we didn't find that out on an incident where we needed water, like yesterday!. Sadly for us, it's failed twice.

                        The multiplex system isn't bad. I just don't care for it after seeing the suicidal failure. The truck was effectively rendered an expensive traffic blockade until they could figure out what to do. "Chit" happens. By no means am I trying to say technology and innovation is bad, but I'm just skeptical of it, and would hate to have it fail and cost someone their life.

                        I have no doubt the systems work, otherwise Pierce, E One, and every other manufacturer would be recalling every truck with the system, and potentially going out of business to fix all the work. It's just some of the odd ball system failures that make me go .

                        PS: The rig in my avatar is multiplexed. Zero problems with that specific system.
                        Originally posted by ThNozzleMan
                        Why? Because we are firemen. We are decent human beings. We would be compelled by the overwhelming impulse to save an innocent child from a tragic, painful death because in the end, we are MEN.

                        I A C O J
                        FTM-PTB


                        Honorary Disclaimer: While I am a manufacturer representative, I am not here to sell my product. Any advice or knowledge shared is for informational purposes only. I do not use Firehouse.Com for promotional purposes.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Marketing

                          I don’t care who you are, when it comes to marketing you have to give it to Pierce! They do a better job then any other manufacturer when it comes to marketing!

                          Having said that I also think that their new trucks incorporates a lot of “new” features that have been around for while, that where copied from other manufacturer’s. Just a few examples:

                          1. Outside grab handles. – ALF, Spartan and others.
                          2. Storage Area inside. – ALF, Spartan and others.
                          3. Seats – All other manufacturer’s except Pierce.
                          4. Officer's Information Center - Spartan and ALF

                          These are just a few quick things I noticed looking at their presentation. I will with hold any other comments until I see the new chassis first hand.
                          Last edited by Chief1FF; 09-18-2006, 11:33 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Load Managers

                            Funny, after all I said about multiplexing, I agree with R343 on load managers. I think they're a cop out that the manufacturers pushed through NFPA to avoid having to engineer in adequate alternators.

                            Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Chief1FF
                              Having said that I also think that their new trucks incorporates a lot of “new” features that have been around for while, that where copied from other manufacturer’s. Just a few examples:
                              Aww, c'mon now, be fair. If you're gonna rag on Pierce for re-engineering or re-badging "new" old features, then at least give the credit where it's due for things like the airbags and the SCBA brackets that automatically clamp down when they detect sudden movements of the vehicle. Besides, most of these features are in turn taken right from the automotive industry anyway. Hardly any real breakthrough stuff here. Remember, in the end we all benefit from the competition among manufacturers and eventually they all wind up working these "new" features into their products, which generally is a plus for us...no matter whose rigs are parked in your bays.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                343,

                                Believe me, I understand how one incident can leave a bad taste in your mouth, especially when it comes to something fairly new that you may already be a bit skeptical about. It's almost like you're just sitting around waiting for it to prove you right (or wrong, as the case may be), whereas with something old and familiar, you don't think about it until something does happen. I also agree, having something fail on fire apparatus is not pleasant, particularly while you're in the middle of a critical operation. I don't know, maybe I've just been around too long now and have had problems with everything from an actual throttle cable from the pump panel to the motor snap on me while pumping, to having the transmission on one of our pumpers lock up in second gear once in a blue moon to the point you have to shut the truck off to reset it, that I basically feel no matter what the underlying system is it has the potential to fail. I guess I'm resigned to the fact that anything man builds is flawed, no matter how near perfect it might be. Toss Murphy's Law into the mix and what better place for something to go awry than on the fireground? Anyway, I don't disagree with you that it's frustrating and things like multiplexing should work 100% of the time. But again, I'm sure the percentage of failures is pretty minuscule on the whole, and even smaller still for failures that put someone's life in immediate danger. But I also believe that if these new technologies prove themselves in the lab and during testing, there's really no further improvement you can make to them without seeing how they operate in the real world in a variety of environments, then bettering them accordingly. Yes, it sucks being the guinea pig sometimes, but in today's day and age, it's hard to have much say in the matter.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X