Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Holmatro Vs. Hurst

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

  • #16
    First of all, to answer larescue of Hurst, phosphate esther is not completely safe. Ask them for a MSDS sheet. You will note its flash point and viscosity is not better than mineral oil. As far a being not conductive, this may be true however the dirt coating the outside of the hydraulic lines will, so that point is worthless. larescue wants you to believe this stuff is safe, ask OSHA for past rulings. You will be surprised.

    As far as weight of tools, yes Holmatro has a 56# 32" spreader, with a 3rd. party(UL) rated spread of over 30,000 #'s. They also have a 33" spreader that weighs only 44#'s.

    I would like larescue to answer on question. Why are you not, and you are not NFPA 1936 compliant???? Come on, your the biggest baddest tool out there, right???

    ------------------

    Comment


    • #17
      We put A new Rescue truck in service in 1981 we equipped it with Holmatro tools jaws cutters etc. we have had excellent service out of them. they still work perfectly but we are in the process of replacing them due to the weight. we are looking at the amkus brand.

      Comment


      • #18
        heatseeker, if Im not mistaken Hurst 32 spreader is NFPA 1936 compliant

        Comment


        • #19
          Well by just talking about those two brands you are leaving out some other good units, my department currently uses the Lukas Combi Tool and it has worked well for us, it is light and can be used with Mineral Oil as the fluid, which is safe on the body if a hose busts. Last year I went to a class where they used TNT Rescue tools. I was impressed with this brand, they seemed light and easy to move around with lots of options, I don't know how well they hold up though because the units we used seemed fairly new.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Chris Deyerle - FF:
            Which Rescue Tools do you prefer Holmatro or Hurst and why? In my opinion holmatro is faster then the hurst tools. Just looking for some feed back. Thanks

            well i would prefer the holmatro tools because they r lighter and yes they r faster we have a set of holmatro tools @ a the dept i vol at here in s.c. and we have hurst @ the dept i am payed at but i still like the holmatro

            Comment


            • #21
              Holmatro was the first to have a UL rating on a specific spreader and cutter, not the entire product line.

              Hurst has not completed their test yet (or at least they haven't advertised it yet)

              There is another tool that has a UL rating that will come out at the FDIC next week in Indy (since this is a question of Hurst vs Holmatro preference I will leave their name out). Everyone talks about a "Texas death match" and stuff like that, it is impossible to take personal preference or partiality out of the equation therefore it would be difficult to come up with a fair test, hence NFPA 1936; a totally impartial test. If a tool is all that it is cracked up to be why aren't they completing the test quickly??? Are they having to redesign just to meet UL???

              Those going to INDY ask questions on where their favorite tool stands on compliance with NFPA 1936.

              Comment


              • #22
                Don't get too hung up over a UL Listing... all you need to get one is to develop a "standard" for your product and then pay Underwriter's Laboratories to test your product to ensure that it meets the standard. So, basically, you simply "buy" the UL approval. You are better off to do some research on your own before you hang your hat on the UL label.

                Comment


                • #23
                  But in that UL rating you have to test to a standard ( NFPA ). You pay UL to test your product (3rd party) to the applicable NFPA. That takes the human elemant out of it. Granted, there is a manufacturers aspect in anything that we do in the fire service, for instance, the new lighting (upper and lower) required on apparatus today. That is a definate influence from the lighting industry.

                  There is a standard (NFPA) now to test tools that doesn't have the element in it for someone to say "I just don't like yours because".

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by fireman_387:
                    But in that UL rating you have to test to a standard ( NFPA ). You pay UL to test your product (3rd party) to the applicable NFPA. That takes the human elemant out of it. Granted, there is a manufacturers aspect in anything that we do in the fire service, for instance, the new lighting (upper and lower) required on apparatus today. That is a definate influence from the lighting industry.

                    There is a standard (NFPA) now to test tools that doesn't have the element in it for someone to say "I just don't like yours because".
                    But the NFPA Standard is NOT what the UL has to test your product to. The company that pays for the test develops the standard and then they pay UL to test their product to meet the standard they come up with.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Then what do they test for (COLOR, WEIGHT, MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS)no, they test to insure that they can meet criteria that is set forth as a standard for a product to maintain whether it be in protection or service. Testing is done after the standard. Give you a for instance, in SCBA, the newest change in the standard the fact of having a second "end of service" alarm. That standard was devleoped in 98( I think) but wasn't required on new units until 9-99. If you want to make claims that manufacturers are "paying" testing firms than that is your business. Like I said before, there are "changes" in the standards that probably have too much influence, at times, from manufacturers. But if you look at the whole picture the changes are in the best interest of the fire service for instance 2000 change in turn-out gear was the removal of neoprene from being used in the vapor barrier. It wasn't allowing for heat to escape a fire fighters gear, now it has to be a breathable liner. PASS devices now have to be activated automatically when removed from their stored position because in the past fire fighters had them on their equipment but weren't turning them on.

                      Staying up with changes and advancements in the fire service is a must, if you think NFPA and third party testing is a gimmick you are probably comfortable wearing the old metal helmets and the heavy rubber 52" turnout coats of the 50's. Well, it's 2001.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Fireman_387, I appreciate your comments, but I am not sure you understand how Underwriters Laboratories operates. I have worked in the field of Extrication Equipment for several years now. I was around when Holmotro got their UL listing, so I saw this from the ground up. Who do you think made the "standard" that Holmotro was tested to for UL??? It was HOLMOTRO... UL has no expertise to make such a standard, and it would not be likely for them to use someone else's standard like the NFPA (which did not have a standard for hydraulic tools at tha time), since that could potentially be a competing entity with UL. If some other company wants to get a UL listing, they can either be tested to the Holmotro standard, or they could submit their own "standard." In the case of a low pressure tool, it would probably not be possible to meet the standard of a high pressure tool... and the same would hold true for a low pressure tool standard for a high pressure tool if pressure ratings were part of the "standard."

                        The point again is, don't put too much weight on the UL listing when you are considering a tool. To my knowledge, no one has been seriously injured from a tool failure. All hydraulic rescue tools will do the job for you as long as you understand their operations and their limitations. A UL label does not necessarily make one any better than the other, nor any safer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I think you all are confusing the tests. UL testing is not required, NFPA testing is.
                          Lets examine both:
                          UL - any reputable company that manufactures a product seeks UL Listing. It is a show of quality, workmanship and safety. Yes, the manufacturer pays for the tests, but don't think UL will put there name on just any product. They will test it and verify its safety and claims. Many of the UL tests Holmatro does exceed those contained in NFPA.
                          If all things were equal, would you purchase a tool that has the UL label or the one that does not. When you buy a fire truck, isn't the pump tested to UL standards???
                          NFPA is a minimum requirement for manufacturers to meet, all the manufacturers participated in the standard, including fire fighters and UL and have had plenty of time to meet it. It began in the early 1990's. Just remember one thing. We as fire fighters have levied for standards to protect us, there is very little purchased today that doesn't have to meet a standard. Why should hydraulic tools be any different.

                          PS. People have been injured with hydraulic tools that have failed.

                          ------------------

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            One other item, I believe Holmatro has over 20 tools that are NFPA compliant. Also, don't believe sales people, check the tool. There should be a NFPA sticker on it if it is in fact compliant. Also, if you read the standard, tools purchased today that are not compliant can not be NPFA compliant later.

                            ------------------

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Haven't used any new HURST but love to work with the HOLMATRO. I keep our 2 units maintained and just updated our connections and love it even more now. I have used AMKUS and another brand at a commercial extrication class and still would rather have HOLMATRO. This is only my opinion but for all the time I have used them they are quick and easy to use.

                              Perry2085

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                In my dept we have had a Hurst system for over 30 years, I started in the sevrice with the hernia era tools.

                                Over my 27+ career, I have had the chance to operate Hurst, Amkus, Holmatro and some of the wanna be's.

                                I love the new Hurst tools, as they are extremely dependable.

                                However having said this, whatever system you do but, you must train, train, train to become proficient in the use of your system and how you can better operate them.

                                Look at and test ALL systems, become familiar with ALL systems and then decide on what system best fits your dept and your district. What system best fits your dept's operations and most importantly, what system
                                fits your depts BUDGET.

                                ------------------

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X