Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default NFPA-1901 chassis/engine "issues"

    Anyone been discussing with your chassis/engine supplier of choice? What are you hearing?

    Apparently Detroit will be done with engines for Custom chassis at the end of 08 as can't meet pump RPM variance standard in 1901-2009. And not going to update.

    Cummins has 2 problems - can't meet pump RPM variance standard and in order to keep engine heat down they do not use EGR. Because of low exhaust temperature they must do active DPF regeneration when the vehicle
    is stopped. Not allowed under 1901-2009. Changing to SCR for 2010 emissions. Their big bore engine will not meet the new 12.2.6 Diesel Particulate Filter section (which I have not read). TNew 2010 emissions the ISM goes awauy and the ISX has issues for potential custom cab applications as ISX 2010 replacement has a 30% greater heat rejection than today truck.

    1901-2001 4.13.1 Rollover Stability requirement requires steering wheel position sensor for the RSC. "Perhaps" tilt table test removes requirement of install of RSC but the small mfg can't afford tilt tables. Apparently under the new rules each apparatus builder (not the chassis builder) are responsible for NFPA compliance at time of delivery and must list any exceptions with remarks as to who is responsible to correct the exceptions. You going to buy a new truck that is not NFPA compliant?

    Apparently Ford, Frtliner/Sterling, Paccar have blown of all the new chassis requirements such as has not the SAE J2422 cab crash and have not begun development on other things like black box, seat belt warnings etc. Leave up to the apparatus mfg. How is that going to work? Particularily for smaller builders? Maybe Class1, Weldon, etc can solve all that stuff with time and $ but going to be expensive for someone (the FD).

    Looks like difficult = expensive time for custom and commerical chassis appartus..

    IH tell me they have engines and chassis that meet 1901-2009 up thru 13l. Will has 15l coming. Are already shipping chassis with the Maxxforce 10 and the 11/13 expected in Oct.
    Last edited by neiowa; 09-04-2008 at 01:35 PM.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Honestly, what worries me most is that some builders will still build trucks, regardless of NFPA compliance or not. We already have them doing it now where they push the limits of what NFPA intends, and think they're somehow immune from liability because they slap a label somewhere, etc.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Sounds like a case of NFPA putting to many restrictions in place before they're available. The limited choices and increased costs will force FD's to keep older apparatus longer, blowing their safety improvements out of the water.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    It really isn't that hard. FIRE SERVICE EXEMPTION or let NFPA/EPA headquarters burn. This crock of s**t has gone on long enough.Increased expense,DECREASED reliability. Make it go away! Don't worry about Cummins,they WILL get any small bug they've got figured out and solved.The bureaucrats that think this crap up need to get out in the field(literally)once in awhile to see the IMpracticallity of it all. Dumbing down of America,Rant off. T.C.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    That variance going to do what for you? And who is going to give you one? IE stick their neck out. And if you're spending FG/fed $ that's a nogo.

    I like Cummins too. But Cummins apparently will have to rewrite their software code and perhaps new hardware to meet rpm variance standard. Apparently they aren't doing it. They have to produce a new exhaust system to meet the standards that go into effect in less than 3months. Perhaps they can make their new 2010 exhaust system work down the road but in 3months?

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Variance will do what for me? If granted(it won't be)it would do several things: Increase reliability and eliminate untried(longterm)systems that WILL cause us problems such as DPF. That's the problem with todays rigs,too much electronics. We used to send a two piece complement on "routine"structure calls,now we've upped the response to make sure at least a couple of the rigs WILL WORK! And,before you start,we have a good shop side,it's the electronic controls/software that have been problematic. This DID NOT happen with the pre-EPA/NFPA mechanically controlled Engines.As I said earlier,Cummins HAS ALWAYS gotten their engines to work under whoevers "standard"needs to be met so they will be compliant. But this crap has gotten so complex that if one was to have 55/60% antifreeze(coolant)mix instead of 50/50 it CAN and WILL throw your emissions off. The engine mfgs won't operate outside of the "standard"for a couple reasons: One,it's the LAW(right or wrong)and two;the Emergency services segment of the total pie isn't big enough to warrant the aggravation of seeking the exemption. I'm NOT big on big government,I personally think it's time for people to take responsibility for their action,not hide behind someone's coattails. These engines changes,along with the neverending list of UNFUNDED mandates just keep jacking up the price of doing business.For some smaller depts,driving them out of business. Then who's protected? And,insofar as apparatus is concerned, I AM NOT spending federal funds. Oh,BTW,have you worked on a modern diesel lately? Give me ANY diesel up thru the mid eighties that won't start and I'll have it running BEFORE you can figure out which sensor is causing your new one not to start. We live in a Hi-tech world but FF's need stuff that WORKS. Reliably.Consistantly. My opinion only,T.C.
    Last edited by Rescue101; 09-05-2008 at 10:38 AM.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,660

    Talking

    A rousing round of applause for the guy from the lakes region !!
    My thoughts exactly TC. You must have been reading my mind.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Variance will do what for me? If granted(it won't be)it would do several things: Increase reliability and eliminate untried(longterm)systems that WILL cause us problems such as DPF. That's the problem with todays rigs,too much electronics. We used to send a two piece complement on "routine"structure calls,now we've upped the response to make sure at least a couple of the rigs WILL WORK! And,before you start,we have a good shop side,it's the electronic controls/software that have been problematic. This DID NOT happen with the pre-EPA/NFPA mechanically controlled Engines.As I said earlier,Cummins HAS ALWAYS gotten their engines to work under whoevers "standard"needs to be met so they will be compliant. But this crap has gotten so complex that if one was to have 55/60% antifreeze(coolant)mix instead of 50/50 it CAN and WILL throw your emissions off. The engine mfgs won't operate outside of the "standard"for a couple reasons: One,it's the LAW(right or wrong)and two;the Emergency services segment of the total pie isn't big enough to warrant the aggravation of seeking the exemption. I'm NOT big on big government,I personally think it's time for people to take responsibility for their action,not hide behind someone's coattails. These engines changes,along with the neverending list of UNFUNDED mandates just keep jacking up the price of doing business.For some smaller depts,driving them out of business. Then who's protected? And,insofar as apparatus is concerned, I AM NOT spending federal funds. Oh,BTW,have you worked on a modern diesel lately? Give me ANY diesel up thru the mid eighties that won't start and I'll have it running BEFORE you can figure out which sensor is causing your new one not to start. We live in a Hi-tech world but FF's need stuff that WORKS. Reliably.Consistantly. My opinion only,T.C.
    I'm not disagreeing with you AT ALL. But as of today you're jousting at windmills. Perhaps "do for you" was wrong way to ask it. Perhaps "who is going to ask pumper mfg for a variance on _______"? That is stick their neck in that noose. What mfg is going to agree to a varience?

    If "WE" get busy next week and take control of NFPA process is it even then possible to "roll back" this stuff? Like trying to unring a bell/shut the door after ..../etc. "MR Witness NFPA 1901 committee member, tell us what you did in 2009 to REDUCE THE SAFETY OF THE EQUIPMENT USED BY MY CLIENT (may you rot in hell you dirty dog)". Reportedly the Chief of a major metro FD was individual that pushed many of the changes thru.

    Apparently Cummins is going to exit the fire truck engine business as not doing the engineering required to be in the business after Jan1, 2009. That takes all the commercial chassis, other than IH, out of play. Leaves the custom chassis guys holding the bag. What a PITA that's going to be. NFPA drives up the cost of chassis and if end up with no competition for the business, not likely to hold down prices.

    Any contrary info would be great to hear.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,432

    Default

    We have looking at purchasing a 100' stick from KME. They had stopped by the station last month with one of their trucks and it was realy nice. When it came down to brass tac, we asked the salesman how much the truck would cost. He advised that this year the 100' stick was at or around $750,000, give or take a few thousand, for equipment. The main thing that he advised was that the cost was going to go up at least 20% to 25% in 09', due to having to redesign the doghouse because of the new EPA rules on emissions. (this does not include the cost of new tech = new costly problems) He also stated that Detroit is done making engines for custom cabs. Long story/short. With the cost of the trucks going up due to the cost of steel, and the new NFPA/EPA rules/laws, Cut backs on the budget and so on, we are now not going to be able to purchase a new truck. So we are now in the market for a nice use/refurb stick. Hell maybe its not a bad thing,now we will be able to afford a (used) platform truck.

    Stay Safe
    Bull
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BULL321 View Post
    He also stated that Detroit is done making engines for custom cabs.
    I must admit that chassis stuff is my Achilles heal, but isn't this statement backwards? Detroit or others build motors, they may not make them for specific custom chassis but if the chassis was designed to take the motor, would that not fit the bill? Is that not part of being a custom chassis builder? Detroit says to everyone, here is what we're offering... Make it fit or find another. Sooner or later the custom boys will have to make it work.

    For the record, I couldn't agree more that we need to stop the out of control unfunded back door mandates. I'm sure we can't win against the EPA, but at the NFPA level, why can't these guys just require the motors work in fire apparatus applications and leave the rest of the running gear alone? Or is that all their mandates are trying to do?

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I must admit that chassis stuff is my Achilles heal, but isn't this statement backwards?
    Not at all. Detroit has announced a strategic alliance with another company and that they simply will not be selling engines to any of the custom chassis builders. Their choice.

    I get the impression that Detroit is fed up with NFPA too.

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kennett Square, PA USA
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Goverment needs to take a step (few steps) back and re-calculate what they are looking for. There are people on this planet who blame everything on "whatever keeps things happening". They really hate the Infernal Combustion Engine. If we were to be reasonable and researched more carefully how we want to get where we need to be things would be much better for everyone. I don't really think that the engines we are using today are going to wipe out the Polar Bears if we keep them as is for a few more years while the engineer types figure out how to do it without that stupid DPF.
    The world will not end if the Big 3 stop providing engines. Carolyn Jackson from Cummins told me at FRI that Cummins will stop taking orders, including pre-buys, in November but will have a compliant ISX ready in July of '09. I believe it will be a 12.5 litre ISX but horsepower numbers and torque ratings are not yet available. International will have a 400HP engine available which they got from MAN in Germany and PAACAR is offering their own engine which is built by their Dutch partner DAF. T.C. for President!!!!!!!!

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,432

    Default

    The Sticking point is this, no matter who is building the engines, the "dog houses" are going to change/EPA (the law), that along with the new NFPA (GUIDELINES) additions are going to drive up the cost of the new trucks through the roof. Not that this should be a problem with all the extra money that the local/state/fed. government is sending our way. Just remember that "It's all for the childern."
    Thanks NFPA for all that you do to keep us safe.

    Stay Safe
    Bull
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    IH is using a design developed by MAN build in the IH Alabama factory. 13l rated to 475hp according their brochure. Will meet 2010 emissons when shipment to FD start in Oct 08 (+/-) Supposed to fit in same doghouse as current Cummins ISM. As I understand will have continuous regeneration (per NFPA) and will not require Urea. Will meet the new NFPA 5% RPM variance with 4000 series Allison.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    NE,in our various exchanges,I've noted a couple things.While we may see the world thru slightly different shaded glasses we seldom disagree.And every thing we discuss,it has been informational.
    Regarding these issues:We have turned into a Nation of sheep(followers). If the FF's of the nation told the Fire administrators of the nation that these new regulations were UNACCEPTABLE and if ADMIN ACTUALLY listened and the Chief's organizations/associations around the Nation GREW A SET and told the NFPA and the Mfgs that this crap was out of control and we were NOT going to put up with it anymore,what do you suppose would happen? I'm not talking a FF group here and a FF there,EVERY FIREFIGHTER,NATIONWIDE telling the regulatory groups to take there regs and stuff 'em. Safety you say? Speaking ONLY for MY agency,our injury rate is HIGHER under the new requirements than it was in my first 15 yrs on the Dept.So much for "new and improved". My next rig was likely to be an Int.,so no matter how this falls out,looks like we'll be OK. But SERIOUSLY,this Hor**s**t has GOT to stop. Or there will be like two REGIONAL FD's for the State of Maine,I don't know about you guys areas. WE CAN control our destiny,but we need some LEADERS not followers. A few folk from the "poor"country setting wouldn't be bad either. As an Admin,I getting REAL sick of unfunded mandates getting shoved down my throat mid budget when there was no money budgeted for the particular line in the first place. We could put traffic vests in this category. Short money,but if it isn't there it isn't there. And on and on ad naseum,T.C.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Tony,you're right! All the fire trucks in the world,WITH 80's EMISSIONS WILL NOT take away the polar bears ice(home). AIRCRAFT,however, might. Think of the fuel consumed(and pollution caused)by the thousands of flights daily in a world where electronically you hold a conference,send mail,money,or a picture in seconds.Yeah,I'm anti electronics: IN FIRETRUCK CONTROL SYSTEMS,outside of that I'm kinda technogeek. There was a time you trained a PERSON to conduct safe operations of a machine,not hand the controls to a "confuser". Oh,how far we've come! Hehe,T.C.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,660

    Default

    TC : I can send you road maps for our islands now and avoid the rush when you big guys take over for us. :-}
    Ed

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firepundit View Post
    Not at all. Detroit has announced a strategic alliance with another company and that they simply will not be selling engines to any of the custom chassis builders. Their choice.
    Ah, this makes sense. Thanks for the clarity. Not good for us as a whole though. Something has got to give somewhere.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    One thing that is noticably missing from NFPA reg process (as far as I've observed) is any cost effectiveness evaluation. Even the Feds are required to perform for at least some regulation areas.

    Say for paid/career FD, and rural/vol FD a requirement for a financial impact report of the life cycle cost of proposed regulation standards and impact on the "industry" and typical FD.

    For example the new TO gear standards.

    Supposed to be properly cleaned - FD $5k for washer extractor, perhaps a
    low temp dryer.
    After 3yr, and every year there after, detailed inspection (detailed cleaning
    first) = +$100/set x7 = $700
    Throw away the TO (regardless of use or condition) and replace (in 2018)
    = $1500 (+)
    x #FF in the US = cost

    Define/quantify the safety improvement.

    Discuss where the $ are going to come from.


    Seems to me a effort to require that all NFPA proposed standard changes include a detailed cost/benefit report would be a worthwhile undertaking that is logical (not negative) and logical enough that it might have a chance of success.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    140

    Default CAT is also getting out

    Caterpillar, Navistar forge truck alliance
    Heavy-equipment giant to drop 'on-highway' engines
    By James P. Miller | Tribune reporter
    June 13, 2008
    Caterpillar Inc., in a significant strategic retreat, said Thursday that it would stop manufacturing heavy-duty truck engines for the U.S. market in 2010.

    Even as the Peoria-based maker of earthmoving and other construction equipment was announcing its withdrawal from the domestic market for "on-highway" truck engines, however, Caterpillar and Warrenville-based truckmaker Navistar International Corp. unveiled a tentative alliance that will provide Caterpillar with an ongoing presence in the truck business.

    Separately, Caterpillar, which has been struggling to keep up with overseas demand for a variety of heavy machinery that it primarily manufactures in the Midwest, said it expects to spend $1 billion through 2010 to streamline operations and boost capacity at five major Illinois factories: in East Peoria, Joliet, Decatur, Aurora and Mossville.

    Caterpillar said it doesn't expect the coming changes to generate any material charges against earnings. Its 2-million-square-foot engine factory in Mossville, which among other products makes the truck engines slated for elimination, will be "redeployed," with its remaining engine production shifted to a still-undetermined U.S. site and all-new production operations implemented at the Mossville site.



    Under the partnership arrangement, Navistar will begin producing a Caterpillar-branded heavy truck designed for "severe service" applications, such as road construction, which will be sold in the U.S. through Caterpillar's network of dealers. Navistar and Caterpillar also will build and sell commercial medium- and heavy-duty trucks in some countries outside North America, a move that will help Navistar expand its overseas presence by using Caterpillar's extensive offshore distribution network.

    For Navistar, the alliance will generate new production volume that promises to create additional manufacturing efficiencies and lower costs per unit. That's in line with the truck company's strategy of leveraging its own assets through production partnerships.

    For decades, Caterpillar and rival Cummins Inc. have been the nation's two principal makers of the "big bore" engines used in cross-country Class 8 trucks, competing with each other to provide such engines to truck producers like Navistar and Paccar Inc.

    But those truckmakers are preparing to produce the big engines themselves. That marketplace shift, combined with the fact that Caterpillar has been losing market share to Cummins in recent years, made it clear that the company's truck-engine operation would face a major drop-off in orders when its current supply contracts expire in 2010.

    Caterpillar makes diesel engines for its own bulldozers, mining vehicles and other machinery. In addition, the company makes mammoth diesel engines used in seagoing vessels, and it is a leading global producer of diesel-powered electric generating equipment.

    As those sales have surged, its U.S. truck-engine business has grown less important, and truck engines last year generated slightly less than 10 percent of the engine group's $13.6 billion in sales.

    Caterpillar shares rose $1.57, or 2 percent, to close at $80.50. Navistar shares climbed $2.50, or 3.5 percent, to $74.40.

    jpmiller@tribune.com

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Seems to me a effort to require that all NFPA proposed standard changes include a detailed cost/benefit report would be a worthwhile undertaking that is logical (not negative) and logical enough that it might have a chance of success.
    This would be a worthwhile requirement. The question is, how can we, the NFPA "customers" impose it upon them. And a caveat: NFPA has a legendary reputation for its understanding of "Statistics will tell you anything you want them to."

    Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post

    Apparently Cummins is going to exit the fire truck engine business as not doing the engineering required to be in the business after Jan1, 2009. That takes all the commercial chassis, other than IH, out of play. Leaves the custom chassis guys holding the bag. What a PITA that's going to be. NFPA drives up the cost of chassis and if end up with no competition for the business, not likely to hold down prices.

    Any contrary info would be great to hear.
    Where did this information come from? I asked the factory rep about when he was here recently and he said that it was news to him. With DDC and CAT dropping out of the North American market Cummins just cornered the market.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    IF03,are those in my Garmin? Makes finding stuff waaaay easier,hehe T.C.

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaEVT View Post
    Where did this information come from? I asked the factory rep about when he was here recently and he said that it was news to him. With DDC and CAT dropping out of the North American market Cummins just cornered the market.
    Ask him if Cummins can hold 1901-2009 5% RPM variance and how Cummins is going redesign their emissions package to meet 1901-2009 (DPF regen). I hope they are doing something as they own the FD market now and have very good engines. I don't think would be good to end up with only one engine supplier (IH).

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I'm going to suggest that every time that big ol' cooling fan kicks in the will be a RPM variance of GREATER than 5% which means whoever at NFPA thought up that little bit of brilliance had his head pretty well up their a**.These guys REALLY ought to spend a little more time around emergency services machinery(hands on not just gazing at it) before they are allowed around the rules and regs roundtable.5% variance is just IGNORANT,and I don't care who's engine it applies to.Somebody,somewhere had better grow a set and learn to say NO! Or get a press and start pressing money. T.C.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sterling "Bullet" Chassis
    By JE4935 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-25-2008, 08:52 PM
  2. Why the jokes/"issues" with "whacker" lights?
    By WaterbryVTfire in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-16-2006, 09:08 PM
  3. "Classic" Carbon NFPA Fire Hood 4 sale
    By irishffn156 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2004, 11:12 PM
  4. Spartan "Big Easy" Chassis
    By Firedog64 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-15-2004, 04:08 PM
  5. NFPA ON SCBA - SPECIFCALLY WHEN IS A BA OR MASK "RETIRED"
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-19-2003, 11:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register