firecaptleal,
You have been on these forums stating that Crimson's aerial is the "best on the hill" What do you think now, in light of all major problems Crimson is having.
Printable View
firecaptleal,
You have been on these forums stating that Crimson's aerial is the "best on the hill" What do you think now, in light of all major problems Crimson is having.
AND still believe in Crimson and i will. If we have problems we will deal with it like all depts. do. I would like a perfact truck like all depts. do,and hope i get that one. Like i said all the trucks are good and you may like one company and i a different one. Hope you have no problems with your choose and i hope the same for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by FF4020
Lets "say" the unit was sabotaged, that would explain the original Catastrophic failure. Now if I am the manufacturer and this is my story I am going to do whatever it takes to be sure that this unit after I do a MAJOR overhaul is more sound and safe than the day I released it from may plant the 1st time! This also does not excuse the fact that the second purchasing department was not told about this prior to the 2nd failure and they had to do the research to find out, only then did Pierce admit this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefighter807
If it looks, acts and smells like a coverup than well.......................
Was this "Design Flaw" covered under the aerial structural warranty? What was the total cost to your dept. for repairs, including transportation?Quote:
Originally Posted by GotaLemon
Our first 103' came approx. one year before the other two. It has been O/S much more than it has been I/S. Has had the front axle replaced due to being over the weight rating. Went back to the factory for a new cab. It was speced and deliveried with a raised roof cab. After taking delivery and providing Crimson with some true "Real World Testing" it was found that the fly sections of the ladder it the sides of the raised cab. OOPS! Another design flaw. So, it now has a flat roof cab and problem resolved. The most recent problem is a broken front leaf spring. The spring gave way while driving putting the Engineer to the test. NO injuries and no damage. We have had the aerial nozzle begin to operate while driving down the rode. It would go into a "windshield wipe" type motion scratching and gouging the cab. Following further inspection it was noticed that there was touch up paint where this had also happened prior to delivery. To my knowledge no one was advised of this possible issue. You ask for my thoughts accross the board...I believe (our) Crimson's 103' aerial's should be taken back and have the true problem (poor TB design) corrected. Now as for the engines, we have quit a few and they have been very dependable and have not had any "out of the norm" problems. Our engines average about 1000 hours a year. The ladders average a little less but not much.Quote:
Originally Posted by FF4020
When our ladder is bedded the turntable flexes upward bowing the platform. When the ladder is raised one side of the ladder raises of its rest before the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower47
It would very easy for someone to call Crimson and ask if there is a department in Texas with multiple 103' aerials having these problems. My honest opinion is that your an uninformed groupie. I have provided only factual information for those that are interested in this particular models problems. Enjoy Crimson's Steaks!Quote:
Originally Posted by firecaptleal
All repair costs have been covered by Crimson. I dont believe our concern should focus on the costs to repair these issues. Our concern is not necessarily for the events of the immediate future but for those down the road. If something catastrophic were to happen in 5 years, will Crimson be around to answer and respond. I would venture to guess that if all units experiencing these problems were brought back to the factiry for a "true fix" it could be financially devistating. It was Crimson who decided the first set of additional gussets would be the appropriate fix...according to their CAD program. In less than 6 months we have found this not to be the case. Just spectulation but I expect it was the same program used to create the original design.?.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Command6
So far all i have seen is a picture of a crack and no more then that. Is this you truck?.And i would like to see more. So beening a uninformed groupie as i im. I think it would be great to have you inform me. LIKE PROOF!!! Like its a Crimson truck to start with and a few more picture would be good. And thank you for the groupie commit it make me fell young.Quote:
Originally Posted by GotaLemon
I was trying to determine if Crimson was being responsive to the problem. I know your frustration, but it can be worse when the manufacturer doesn't care to work with you, or worse yet, they're out of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by GotaLemon
I would imagine the torque box issue would be covered by the warranty on the aerial device; for most builders, that is about 20 years.
Texas is definitely Crimson country from the looks of their user list.
C6
The goal of Crimson Aerials has been to raise the performance bar of aerial devices and enhance their capabilities.
In doing so, we have incorporated a number of features that have proven to be of significant benefit to our customers. We have utilized the best engineering technology available to develop robust designs that incorporate excellent structural integrity in order to deliver exceptional performance.
As can be the case when developing innovative new products, we have encountered problems with one of our aerial models. Our RL103 rear-mount ladder developed a crack around the mounting foot area of the torque box and forward stabilizer support. This was discovered during an annual inspection on a unit in service.
During the prototype phase, this area was analyzed using the most up-to-date computer techniques and strain gauge technology. An independent, third-party testing firm performed the strain gauge analysis. The ladder and torque box were subjected to significant overloads, well beyond rated capacity. The problem did not surface during the testing phase.
After the problem was discovered, we:
1. Utilized a thorough engineering design and analysis to determine a corrective action.
2. Performed a strain gauge test that measured the stress in this area. We utilized a third-party engineering firm to validate the design.
3. Immediately launched a corrective action campaign to incorporate the design change to all units in the field. All repairs were performed by certified welders following a well-documented repair procedure. All repair welds and the aerial were inspected by independent third parties. Crimson covered all the costs associated with the repairs.
4. Implemented a follow-up inspection plan on several units to verify the integrity of the repair.
5. Immediately incorporated all the changes in units in production. Each production unit is overload tested to validate the integrity of the area.
Our response to this issue involving a single aerial model has been thorough, professional and immediate. Crimson remains committed to developing new features and dependable designs that promote safety and improve functionality.
AND THAT IS WHY I BELIEVE CRIMSON IS TOP OF THE HILL. AND CANT WAIT TO GET ARE 100FT. PLATFORM IN MAY 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonFire
I'm not so sure all the problems have been solved yet. Spirit Lake, Iowa has had many of the same issues and it doesn't sound like they are all fixed yet. I believe they got one of the first 103' ladders and it has been out of service quite a bit. Crimson will have a tough job of convincing everyone that everything is going to be alright. It's going to take a lot more than that post they just made.Quote:
Originally Posted by firecaptleal
It sounds like there has been problem after problem with the aerials between the ones in Texas and now Spirit Lake. Not to forget that there are now serious issues with the Boomer. I would not want to be guinea pig that buys one of those given the mishap at the Illinois Chief's show. In addition Brookings, SD has recently rejected their Unimog attack truck because engineering really goofed up on the weights.
It looks like engineering at Crimson is sure struggling here lately. It's gonna take some time before my department would consider to buy a Crimson with the track record they have going for them.
Stay safe!
-2410
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonFire
Did this one pass the prototype phase too?
How could someone claim to have…
“We have utilized the best engineering technology available to develop robust designs that incorporate excellent structural integrity in order to deliver exceptional performance.”
Then, in the following paragraph….
“Our RL103 rear-mount ladder developed a crack around the mounting foot area of the torque box and forward stabilizer support.”
I believe a key question to be answered about this “development” is… The Cause. I can appreciate that Crimson hired a third party engineering firm to validate their design and that it was within normal limits. The answer to Why or What is Causing the cracks seems to still be missing. Are the cracks due to city driving/road conditions (surely the prototype had many hours of test driving through and over city streets into parking lots with steep entries and the such), or is it due to aerial set up procedures, or just normal use of the aerial, or could it have anything to due with the flexibility or rigidity of the chassis/frame in which it is mounted atop? It would seem that if we knew the why or what to the problem we would better know how to correct that problem rather than just add more steel gussets. It would also seem prudent to have a metallurgical engineer evaluate the failed areas and see if they could shed any light on the cause. If we can’t agree on anything else I feel confident we can agree that there is a CAUSE or REASON for the failed areas. Until that is determined all else seems to be nothing more than chasing rabbits.
I've also heard that Spirit Lake (The 103 all over Crimson's web site) has had quite a few issues with their 103. It really sounds like you are having the same issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by LT2410
Please note that the heel pin pivot point and the base of the lift cylinder are spaced apart considerably more on your loader than on the Boomer. At a low elevation the lift cylinder is trying to rip the boom off of the turntable of the boomer. The heel pin must contain this force before the boom will raise. It looks like the heel pin was able to hold up but the weak weld couldn't handle the stress. Also, with the fabrication being on the same side as the cylinder this force was applied to the weakest point. Perhaps if the cylinder was on the same side as the waterway/boom it might not have been as big of an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM
I don't think anyone here would like to be in the bucket of a platform that was considered OK for fireground operation but would "fall victim to roading". I am pretty sure that if a bucket will fall off from driving it around the country, it could very well do so while in service.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM
Essentially, I don't think that this was "one of those problems". Yes, the other problems mentioned have happened to the best of them. Companies with hundreds of a particular model built with the occasional problem are the norm. That said, here we have an instance of a single unit made that failed. In other words, a 100 percent failure rate.
Actually, it sounds more like CYA. Either this unit was built using their standard engineering and test methods or it wasn't. If it wasn't, why not? If it was.......Quote:
Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM
Now they are bringing out the "technology" to cover their backsides when they should have built it right the first time.
There is no excuse for a huge cold weld to get past a bunch of aerial experts, et alone in such a critical area. It wasn't just the welder that screwed up. In the military there would be some shift in the ranks of the officers.
It is hard to believe this statement was even made. I do not dispute that Tim knows a lot about aerials but, I seriously doubt that he has done an in depth analysis of the materials, moments of force, shear strengths etc.. of this design under dynamic loads. In fact, I bet the manufacturer only used static load models to test it (if any). This is nothing but an opinion put forth as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM
Not to bring up another story but has anyone heard the latests in reference to Wheaton (IL) Fire's Crimson platform??
I'm not sure what if anything has happened but I received a PM that said there were possibly some issues there...
I have heard through the grapevine that the unit was returned or bought back (whichever is polictily correct), but still have not been able to confirm. Can anybody answer this?Quote:
Originally Posted by LT2410
Best Apparatus Component - Peter Jorgensen
Crimson Fire’s Boomer gets the 2007 Award for the Best New Component. The Boomer is a new approach to an old problem – how to provide an elevated master stream on a pumper. In the 1970s the Squrt came out with an articulating boom, which later developed into the Tele-Squrt, a telescoping version. But the Boomer is more versatile.
This 28-foot hydraulically-operated, heavy-duty mast is much more than just a way to get a horizontal, deep-penetration stream into a third or fourth floor of a commercial building. It can be used as a 6,000-watt scene lighting tower, a remote camera platform, a power port for hydraulic rescue tools, a supply source for rooftop handlines and even as a crane boom.
The Boomer’s nozzle will deliver 1,000 gpm and can be swiveled a full 360 degrees. The boom itself will go from minus 10 degrees, to a full upright 90 degrees. At $50,000 it provides greatly expanded capabilities at only about a 15 percent increase in cost over the standard custom pumper.
Crimson has a 48-foot version on the drawing boards, but that will require rear mounting and outrigger jacks for stabilization.