Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Holmatro Vs. Hurst

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

  • heatseeker
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • resqtek3
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Truckie5553
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • ShaneT11
    Guest replied
    We are in the middle of testing several different tools at this time and I believe it has come down to 2 tools the holmatro and the TNT tool. We have talked with all the reps and Hurst has not changed much in the past years. Other tools are lighter and more powerful. TNT has offered great service thus far and promises to do so in the future. Holmatro is a good tool but lack on customer care. We like other departments have had Hurst for a very long time but I think it is time to move to a newer technology. Tool performance is improtant but so is customer care and upkeep.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Engine69
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by dfriday:
    Nike
    And after all this time I thought they only made tennis shoes....

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • dfriday
    Guest replied
    Chris:
    Do not under any circumstances make a decision @ which equipment to use based on the one-sided and jaundiced views expressed in this forum. Call Amkus, Holmatro, Hurst, Phoenix, Curtiss-Wright, TNT, Genesis, Kinman, Nike, Lukas, or any other manufacturer convenient to your area, and arrange demomonstrations. That way you will see the newest equipment they have and you can compare apples to apples. If they wont come do the demo, thats a pretty good indication of the service you wouldn't get anyway. There is no substitute for HANDS ON, as any training officer worth his salt will tell you. Or go to a T.E.R.C. competition and watch the best of the best- you may decide to use hand tools when you see what some of those crews can do!- It will blow your mind if you haven't seen it before, and it'll make you want to carry a Hi-lift jack and Hacksaw on your POV. Capt. Dan
    P.S. If you want to see an exercise in futility, see HURST vs HOLMATRO in the archives- it's easy to find and it's 3 pgs long.

    [This message has been edited by dfriday (edited 05-05-2001).]

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • rescuelt4
    Guest replied
    Doesn't matter what tool you have...
    All depends on whos on the end of it.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • j. schmidt
    Guest replied
    My department purchased Hurst back in the early 70's. The tools were recondition sometime in the late 80's. We are in the process of looking to replace them. I have used both Halmatro and Hurst. It is my opinion that it is a matter of preference. I feel the both are every good tools. For my department we are going to look at many different models. But because we are a volunteer fire department and seeing the problems that may arise from guys switching to another tool compared to one they have used for years. I feel we will stay with Hurst.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Daryl Camp
    Guest replied
    I have used the Holmatro gear for 12 years now and have also used the Hurst, Amkus and Lucas tools. The Holmatro tools have a pressure relief valve on the tool body that will not allow excess pressure to build up. The couplings on the Holmatro are the best I have seen, they have a tight fit and a locking collar to secure the fittings together.
    The thing I don't like about Hurst and others is that the ones I have used rely on a small thumb lever to operate the tool. Holmatro uses a "dead mans" handle that allows the tool to be operated in any position.
    We use a Holmatro four cycle engine to run our hydraulic pump and we can use two tools at the same time.
    I agree with the other comments made about testing and servicing tools, it must be regular and every year should go through a full service.
    I have NEVER had a piece of Holmatro gear fail on me during an extrication or a test.

    Personally I would choose Holmatro tools every time.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • wofd1
    Guest replied
    My 2 cents worth about bursting hoses, seals, or ?. If tool is maintained properly and annually it should not be a problem with either systems operating psi. Departments should be checking tools on a regular basis and after each use to see if any physical damage has occurred to the tool itself or hydraulic lines feeding it. Most failures are results of damage or lack of preventive maintanence. Kinked, cut, pinched hoses being the most common. After each use hoses should be wiped down (cleaned) and visually inspected for abrasion, bulges, flat spots, kinks, etc. Any questionable equipment should be tagged and tested by service provider. If tools donot get used alot, its a good idea to exercise them to keep em lubed up.
    As for which tool is better or what operating pressure is better. What kind of car do drive? They're all good tools, alot is operator experience. Stay safe

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • frisco
    Guest replied
    I am someone who has been doing a lot of research on which rescue tool is better for my agency, Holmatro or Hurst. I am surprised to see that there is a common thread to all of the discussion that weaves through the last two pages on this subject. I really prefer the Holmatro tools. When reading about the 5,000 psi system tool that burst and how someone could not imagine a 10,000 psi system bursting, I ask the following question: How could a tactical/rescue group allow any tool to burst and seem so casual in writing about it here? Shouldn't they be in the manufacturer's face demanding what happened? From what I have learned, the Holmatro system will not burst because it has been tested to a limit of twice pressure (21,000 psi, that's four times the 5,000 psi system without failure) by UL and also to a 1.5 limit by the NFPA standard. So I feel safe that the 10,000 psi system is reliable. It should be very sad for the 5,000 psi system to have a failure when that is the easier/lower pressure to design for. Shame on them! I have also read about the non toxic-ness of the phosphate ester fluid and how it is fire resistant. I believe if the proper measures are put into place we will not have to worry about "mineral oil" fires at rescue/disaster sites. In addition, the mineral oil will probably never even make it out of a Holmatro tool based on my agencies tests with their better quality couplers. I witnessed a user of a Hurst tool that was uncoupling their "sure to drip a lot" couplers when he got phosphate ester in his eye. He was wearing safety glasses, but with the perspiration on his forehead the fluid was able to make its way into his eye. The person's eyelid swelled up and he was in much pain. He was rushed to the emergency room.
    I have received a CD ROM from Holmatro that I have not had a chance to look at yet but I am excited to see what new products they have and learn more about the testing. I have not seen any Hurst tools with labels showing they are NFPA compliant, and I know for sure this is required. It is not advertising; it is a notification of meeting a standard, and if the tool does than it is labeled. If you really want to be sure, write it into your purchase requisition and see who can meet it. I know I will.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • heatseeker
    Guest replied
    fireman387 - you are correct. When the my department was looking at tools, provided a list of compliant tools, and then a letter from UL showing which tools were in final testing. The letter basically stated the tools were going to pass, but the entire process was not complete. Shortly thereafter, the tools that were on this list passed, and we received our new tools about 2 months later, all NFPA compliant.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • fireman_387
    Guest replied
    Guys, NFPA does not test they come up with a standard; UL, SEI or companies like that do the testing as a third party to validate a manufacturers claim to what their product will do in relation to the standard.

    Hurst makes claims that practically all their tools are compliant to the standard but this past weekend at the FDIC when asked for a copy of their letter from their third party (UL) test as to the tools they claim to have passed I was told their was no such letter. Well, when Holmatro tested they advertised as soon as they had an approval on their first tool and they would back it up with a letter. Hurst could not accomodate the request to verify their "claims" to the NFPA compliance. Their was a statement used in the past that fits in this occasion, "Makes you go HMMMM?"

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Engine69
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by heatseeker:
    Engine69, it sounds like your a genesis ( or is that Weber ) fan. Don't worry, if you read NFPA 1936 genesis can't meet the standard since genesis is not a manufacturer.
    Heaven's forbid NO!!! Keep them high pressure tools away from me!!! But you are correct, the Genesis is a Weber with a Genesis label on it. I am not a "fan" of any particular tool, but I do prefer low pressure and my department has Phoenix Tools.

    And I am not mad at all... I'm too old for that silliness .



    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • heatseeker
    Guest replied
    engine69, don't get so mad. To answer your question, Holmatro went an extra step to have UL listing. NFPA testing is similar in many ways to the test UL does for Holmatro. All manufacturers were involved in the process of NFPA-1936, including fire fighters and UL.
    To answer the sticker question, all tools need to be stickered showing compliance. I just returned from FDIC and didn't see any stickers on any tools, just some line from Hurst that most tools were done or on final testing. Why didn't they have a letter from UL stating testing, as Holmatro has.

    Engine69, it sounds like your a genesis ( or is that Weber ) fan. Don't worry, if you read NFPA 1936 genesis can't meet the standard since genesis is not a manufacturer.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X