Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Holmatro Vs. Hurst

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

  • #46
    Last October i was involved on the inside with Extrication 2000. This is the place where the true superstars of auto extrication gathers to strut their stuff. With all of the vendors there, the chance to demo just about any tool wanted was available. With my department we currently carry 1 set of Holmatro Rescue tools on our squrt and we carry 2 sets of tools on our truck company. Without a doubt i feel that holmatro is the best by far. The overall weight is where they truely shine. They all even the smallest of persons to be able to handle the tool in a safe and controlled manner and still effectively complete the task at hand. The other nice thing about Holmatro is the highly powerful second stage. Again when you try to compare rescue tools on speed alone, you are comparing apples with oranges, but when you compare the overall features, weight, simplicity for use, and how effective the tool will be, then you will then find the tool that will be the best tool for you and your department.

    ------------------
    Captain James Collier
    McMahan Fire Rescue
    KCTCS Area 6 Instructor

    Comment


    • #47
      Those wondering about UL testing should call and speak with a UL Rep, you will be quite suprised at how testing is done, the manufacturer decides initially to what level the tools will be tested. And did you know that there are different ratings for the spreaders and cutters to show how well they tested? Well maybe we should do some further research. NFPA standards were being met by MOST Manufacturers before the NFPA was ever tasked to devise a standard, and many manufacturers were already meeting the German Standards which are predominately higher.
      The reason some tools were certified before others lie in the fact that some manufacturers were lucky enough to sit on the committee, how about that for inside tracks. And what happened to having a 4 to 1 safety factor in our systems and hoses, I guess since some high pressure units couldn't meet it that it was ok to lower a standard to 2 to 1. Does that truely make since?

      Why isn't there a standard on rescue Air bags?

      Comment


      • #48
        Resqtek3 - I respectfully disagree with what you just wrote. You mentioned UL tests, so I assume you are referring to Holmatro's statements regarding UL Listing. If you look at the NFPA tests and the UL test that Holmatro does, they are basically the same but the UL are more stringent. For instance, where NFPA requires a 1.3X overload test, the UL test is done at 1.5x overload. From your statement, I should assume the UL label on my turn-out gear means nothing. The German Standard you refer to is the DIN standard. This is a quality assurance standard, not a safety and performance standard. You also made a statement that most company's have always built tools to meet the standard but this is not true. Most manufacturers have made several changes. The standard has at the very least required manufacturers or sales people to be honest about the tools performance such as cutting or spreading forces. For your information, no hydraulic tool on the market meets a 4:1 safety factor, not one. Holmatro and Hurst use 4:1 hoses but the tools are 2:1 in safety. ( Holmatro also has 3:1 hose). In regards to NFPA and the standard, all major manufacturers were on the comittee. Michael Brick of Pheonix Rescue, William Swayne of Holmatro, Dieter Hesse of Lukas, James Kaye of Hale-Hurst, Richard Otte of Curtiss-Wright and Alan Painter of Amkus. Read the standard.

        Comment

        300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

        Collapse

        Upper 300x250

        Collapse

        Taboola

        Collapse

        Leader

        Collapse
        Working...
        X