Vindicator

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by john henkel on January 20, 2009 at 6:25pm

Kirk,sorry I just wanted people to be more open minded about your product,I should have stated,more clearly
that it is not a complete and total replacement,but should be added to there attack format,and there are other good
products,but using the vindicator first hand it's amazing.I am happy to say we use all three that we have.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by john henkel on January 20, 2009 at 7:22pm

Thats why field tests are important,to show the diffrences,cost is always a factor with any good equipment that is field proven,but as always it is not the complete fix but is great to have more than one choice

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 20, 2009 at 7:55pm

Jimmy Adams said:

For the price of these nozzle you can buy a lot of smooth bore nozzles. On one of the past departments I worked for it was in a cross lay but was never pulled. Guys hated it. The old chief bought it and with no field testing and the guys never liked it. It does work good with foam.

Jimmy there is nothing worse than a purchasing decsision, for any product, being made by one person that effects the whole department. I find your comment interesting. It worked good with foam, but the guys hated it and if it never got pulled what was the hatred based on? Perceptions?

What was the target application they were looking for?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris Fleming on January 20, 2009 at 8:15pm

I think this is the first time I've seen a response by a manufacturer to a blog posting on this web site! Thanks Kirk for putting yourself and the information about your product out there. I agree with you that one tool won't do it all, and that different applications require different tools. Thanks for your honesty. Good luck.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Adams on January 20, 2009 at 8:39pm

Kirk Allen said:

Jimmy Adams said:

For the price of these nozzle you can buy a lot of smooth bore nozzles. On one of the past departments I worked for it was in a cross lay but was never pulled. Guys hated it. The old chief bought it and with no field testing and the guys never liked it. It does work good with foam.

Jimmy there is nothing worse than a purchasing decsision, for any product, being made by one person that effects the whole department. I find your comment interesting. It worked good with foam, but the guys hated it and if it never got pulled what was the hatred based on? Perceptions?

What was the target application they were looking for?

Kirk,

It seems like the guys did not like the size of it. It was bulky. Also reaction force was another thing guys complained about. When using the class A foam system it didi seem to produce good foam. We are across the river from Cincinnati and they have them and love them from what I understand. All things the same I think the 15/16" is easier to handle in most cases.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 20, 2009 at 8:40pm

Thanks for your comments Chris.

For those that know me you know my words are about more than selling a product. The heat release in todays fire is by far greater than ever before. We face greater dangers, and I believe, as I know do others, we must stop teaching calculations and emphasize on factual measurements.

How bad is it?
A 100 foot arial flowing a whopping 400-gpm while everyone "thought" it was flowing 1000-gpm. What did they miss? One thing! TESTING!

We need to quit "thinking" we are flowing a set number and start confirming our flows. How would you like to be the IC that directs a couple 1000gpm streams towards a fire fight and all your training says you should be winning but your not? 2000 GPM and your not making progress? Whats the common response? "Must have been a realy heavy fire load", or "that was a really hot fire". Is it possible we just weren't flowing what we thought? How often have we critiqued our fires to look for solutions to what happen and not once was "checking" or "measuring" our flows even considered?

Im telling you, I see this 95% of the places I visit and its not product specific. Why do I see it? Because I will not teach without flow meters and pressure gauges to confirm actual flows. Having the equipment takes all the sales hype out of any nozzle. If we dont "know" what our real baseline is how on earth can we make an informed decision on new nozzles?

I could share reports from all over the country if you like but the bottom line is if your not willing to "know" your factual fire flows the rest is just interesting :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 20, 2009 at 9:03pm

Also reaction force was another thing guys complained about. When using the class A foam system it didi seem to produce good foam. We are across the river from Cincinnati and they have them and love them from what I understand. All things the same I think the 15/16" is easier to handle in most cases.

Jimmy, I appreciate the feedback. If your looking for a great foam nozzle, whether Class A, B, and/or CAFS, the Vindicator works exceptionaly well. However, in regards to CAFS, you will never hear the CAFS manufacture or salesman support the Vindicator. Not because it wont work with CAFS, but because when you see it with just class A foam you will start to question how many more items you could purchase instead of spending $35K on a compressor. Kind of like one saying you can buy lots of smooth bores for the price of a Vindicator. You can buy lots of Vindicators for the price of a compressor. :)

In regards to Cincinnati, yes they have a bunch of the Vindicators, as well as Elkhart Chief's. They are pleased with both and both have specific applicaitons.

When you say all things the same, Im not sure what you mean. FDNY proved if NP is the same the Vindicator had more flow and less NR than their 15/16th tips. If the flow was the same the Vindicator had even less reaction, and even put the fires out faster.

Regardless of the FDNY inforamtion, you make my point for me and I appreaciate it. Perceptions are based on our experience and we, as humans take that as fact. Unfortnutatly, our hands-on experience is limited by the amount of information that is at our disposal during that expereince. Feelings, emotions, opinions etc, have nothing to do with fact based decsision making. Had you had a flowmeter, inline pressure gauges etc, your feelings would then have a baseline of information to reference and compare. Without that, two quote a great friend, "its just interesting."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ray McCormack on January 21, 2009 at 8:30am

Kirk - I do not wish to get into any type of debate on the Vindicator. We tested the nozzle very aggressively in buildings and at actual fires. I never argued with the findings as for flow and pressures.I never tested the 2 1/2 model. I wish I had. However what some fail to realize is there is more to a nozzle purchase than just flow. I am not going to state the reasons why we did not give the nozzle a favorable review.
How many 1 3/4 models did the FDNY purchase?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Buechel on January 21, 2009 at 10:02am

We have a 2 1/2 inch Vindicator on a rear preconnect on Engine 1. The guys do like it, but like many people have already stated, it is a tool. It is a good foam nozzle, but it is bulky. It has low nozzle reaction, with good flow. But I would rather use a less bulky smoothbore for flow. If you spin off the aspirator tube, you can hook a 1 3/4 line to the nozzle. In increasing the stretch of a 200' 1 3/4 preconnect, this is also another tool. I know it ties up a 2 1/2, but it is another way to use it. But for that it is an expensive 2 1/2 to 1 3/4 reducer.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rob Cannon on January 21, 2009 at 3:57pm

This topic is like me saying my fire engine is better than yours.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 21, 2009 at 6:36pm

Ray McCormack said:

Kirk - I do not wish to get into any type of debate on the Vindicator. We tested the nozzle very aggressively in buildings and at actual fires. I never argued with the findings as for flow and pressures.I never tested the 2 1/2 model. I wish I had. However what some fail to realize is there is more to a nozzle purchase than just flow. I am not going to state the reasons why we did not give the nozzle a favorable review.
How many 1 3/4 models did the FDNY purchase?

Ray, if facts are presented then debate is constructive. I have no problem with person sharing a negative experince with our product because it opens the door to learning. That fact is what has brought us to where we are today in this business. The one thing that I keep coming back to is fact based decsision making. I know numerous people within your orginazation that have a different opinion than yours. Does that make your opinion any less valuable? No but it does tell us that maybe they did something different to draw their conclusions and its possible that what ever those differences were might be the very reason they like it and you dont, which has nothing to do with the product. I have had crews who used 400 feet of hose and complained the nozzle didnt have a good stream, or delaminated hose, or high FL hose etc. Many factors in that process. When I used it in California during a tire fire study everyone hated it. We couldnt flow more than 150 gpm from it. ??????????????? Before we were fed to the wolves we took the nozzle off and wouldnt you know it, the hose by itself could not flow more than 150 gpm. Thats what you get when you buy single jacket agricultural irigation hose for your engine. It was crap and they never knew it becuase they have never flowed any real water, yet they were ready to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I have had numerous agencies tell me why they did not like our product and 9 out of 10 times the reasons had nothing to do with the product. My goal is not to argue but to offer an opinion with supporting facts. Yes, there are many factors that effect a purchase besides flow, that is excatly why FDNY did so many different tests to compare what they were using. I would love to see the written review of the performance that you expereinced and the base line comparison numbers. As far as how many models did the FDNY purchase, None, however the day after 9-11 they did request our master stream and it was used for weeks delivering foam from numerous ladders. How many did Chief Ganci and Chief Turi want prior to 9-11? It was over 300 nozzles and had it not been for the loss of Chief Ganci at that attack, that purchase would have been made as the reviews were done and the paperwork in the works. We all agreed that it was not the cure all nor was it replacing what you us. Numerous Chief Officers recognized that it does in fact have an application.

I have a stack full of positive reviews from Chicago to include purchase recomendations from each and every one that tested it yet to date that city has only purchased 3. Welcome to Chicago Polotics :) Cincinatti has 90 of them. Who should we follow, those who purchase or not? FDNY was exposed to truly horific hose problems during our serveral years working with R&D yet up to last year they had still not purchased the lowest FL hose on the market. Does that make that hose any less valuable to the rest of the fire serivce? No it does not but like you said, lots of factors go into purchasing equipment. We agree that flow is only a small portion of the equation when it comes to nozzles.

Personaly, I think the most important factor to consider is, does it absorb heat better, since that is what we want a nozzle to do. All the other stuff is important but if I have to take more time to eat the BTU's with the same GPM I am not interested. Seperating our wants from our needs I would hope is the focus. If we can identify the absolute must haves, for any product, the wants become secondary. No need in filling a want if it doesnt meet the need column in our decision making process and that goes for all the tools we use.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ray McCormack on January 21, 2009 at 8:37pm

Kirk - Yes you keep mentioning "fact based decision making" and impling that my recomendation lacked it becaue we did not give the product a positive review. I don't know what tests the admirers gave the product. Maybe if they had tested it the way we did without feelings and in a real world enviornment they might have came to a different conclusion. I know we gave the product a fair trial. Good Luck with your future sales.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page