Vindicator

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 20, 2009 at 8:55pm

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

Permalink Reply by Chris Fleming on January 20, 2009 at 9:15pm

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

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Adams on January 20, 2009 at 9:39pm

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

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 20, 2009 at 9:40pm

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

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 20, 2009 at 10:03pm

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

Permalink Reply by Ray on January 21, 2009 at 9:30am

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

Permalink Reply by Jeff Buechel on January 21, 2009 at 11:02am

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

Permalink Reply by Rob Cannon on January 21, 2009 at 4:57pm

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 21, 2009 at 7:36pm

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

Permalink Reply by Ray on January 21, 2009 at 9:37pm

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

Permalink Reply by Kirk Allen on January 22, 2009 at 1:43am

Ray McCormack said:

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.

Ray, your assumption would require me to know that your review was not positive, which until reading this I did not know, especialy since all you have said on this board before was; "it was not for us".

Why do you assume the other testing within your own deparment was done based on feelings and not in a real world environment? Is it possible that maybe your own people discovered something that you missed or more importantly, maybe you discovered something that they should be shown. That very reason is why testing must be fact based, which leads to "duplicatable" results. If it cant be duplicated then chances are what ever happen during someones testing was not accurate. Just because a person fights fire with it in their normal every day course of events does not mean that they were using it the way they were suppose to. Surely you agree with that.

My comments focusing on fact based information was not an attempt to assume or implying anything regarding your actions. Accuracy in evaluation is all we ever ask. Your confident that your testing was done accurately. So much so that I welcome you, and in fact encourage you to go ahead and post the very fact based information you used to establish your view. This type of information should include the basic baseline information that every engine company was suppose to establish prior to ever using the nozzle during those evaluations. Engine Pressure, plumbing FL, Hose Length, Hose FL, NP, GPM.

What I do know, their have been several engine companies, both within your department and others that have tested many products but for the sake of my point I will stick with our product. A real world test, as you call it starts long before we would ever make entry into a building to fight a real fire. Training on the product from someone who has in fact used it in just about every live fire application would be a good starting point. Understanding its specific application would be another. Documented and duplicatable flow and pressure numbers for what is being compared. Meaning if were going to test "ANY" prodcut to see how it works we must "know" the numbers of what we currenty use. Sure, everyone knows a 15/16th tip flows 185 gpm but how many "know" they are getting it. Expereince? Calculations? or have they actually measured it with a pitot, or flow meter? I know for fact that only one engine company during our initial training was actually flowing that target 185-gpm. The same problem lies with evaluating a 250 gpm nozzle. If the flow is not getting their the results are less than expected.

The very test parameters established from your R&D division, with Al Turi and Chief Ganci, were established based on seat of the pants comments coming from the field. I say seat of the pants becuase that was Chief Ganci's words. He stated that becuase the very testing he saw first hand was in conflict with what he was hearing from within the department so either he was wrong or someone else was not doing something right. He knew the answer was in fact based evaluation because it was with him we identified double the hose FL in the 2 1/2 lays being used. Everyone was assuming they were flowing a given number with their smooth bore but in fact they were flowing less. He wanted facts.

So from a list of 5 key complaints he established a set of tests to take the human factor out of the equation. As you pointed out, we dont need feelings getting in the way.

1. Stream didn't have any punch.
R&D built an impact device to measure the impact. Testing confirmed it had more. Why would people say it didnt have any punch? He didnt care because the facts are it had more. Excuse eliminated. If a guy isnt getting equal punch or greater than his 15/16th tip then he isnt pumping it right. Not the nozzles problem.

2. Streams doesn't absorb any heat.
R&D utilized thermocouples with duplicatable fire loads and the same crew on both nozzles with every effort of providing a proper comparison. Testing confirmed overwhelmingly it absorbed more BTU's, even at the same GPM. Why would people say it didnt absorb heat? He didnt care because he understood physics. If it flows more water at the same NP its going to put out more fire. Excuse eliminated.

3. Its to hard to hold.
R&D built a digital load cell to measure the NR of both what you have and our product. Testing confirmed we had less reaction even while flowing 60 gpm more. Why would people say it was to hard to hold? He didnt care because fact based testing took away the argument, which was based on feelings. If it was to hard to hold you were over pumping! His words, not mine!

4. Hose Kinks
Testing relfected a whopping 5 gpm loss when tested at 180 gpm and 20 gpm loss with 240gpm. He confirmed hose kink was not a problem. What was so unique with the Chief on this one was the fact that he wanted to know what the flow was with the kink becuase just becuase its kinked does not mean you lose a bunch of water. His test paramiter proved this!

5. No water getting to the target
The delivery of the stream into a tank on the fireground disproved this "feelling" as well. In fact, utilizing the same Nozzle reaction numbers (same effort on peronel) he proved the water on target was in fact greater becuase of the increased flow capability. Again, excuse eliminated.

I respected the hell out of Chief Ganci for the way he handled things becuase he knew what he saw and had enough experince to know there is no reason it wouldnt work in the "real world" environment. My point of sharing this is because the vary excuses he heard steamed from human factors that had nothing to do with the nozzles performance.

He knew the day Commissioner Von Essan was flowing water with the nozzle their was going to be problems. He was right becuase we heard it in less than 24 hours. Fabricated fears that the Commissioner is buying some new nozzle that is going to reduce manpower. Presto! Overnight the fear was this new nozzle is going to eliminate a crew member. No foundation to support that but that was the beginning. Within days we had a laundry list of complaints from the field. Chief Ganci understood the human factor and took it out of the equation the best he could.

He listened to the complaints and then set out to either prove, or disprove them. He never intended for our nozzle to replace every nozzle in the city. He just knew it was a tool that truly had a unique application and recognized the value it would bring to his department. Nothing more.

I challenge each and every person reading this to disprove the facts found by valid testing. http://00691ee.netsolhost.com/Testimony/Final%2520Report%2520for%25...

With that, I dont expect everyone to beet our doors down and use our product. That is not my point or goal with this dialog. I just want people to better understand the importance of not just fact based testing but how to do it.

Anyone that has sat through my class knows my heart on this issue. Many respected members within Fire Engineering know my position and its not about just selling a product. Each and every class I emphasize, whether you ever buy our product or not, the information I am going to share applies to your operation and may one day save your life.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page