1. #1
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default To Move the AL - FE discussion

    Gents, just thought I would move this to a new thread - it was in the Crimson Thread. We all know where this one is going anyway but it's all in fun right? No reason to have this discussion take over that thread . TL

    Quote Originally Posted by Quint23 View Post
    Here is food for thought!!

    If aluminum is so good why haven't they ( engineers ) built any highway bridges or cranes out if it?

    Why do you have heat strips on your aluminum ground ladders and what do you do with them when they change color?

    Where to you put you aerial ladder during a fire?
    Quote Originally Posted by efd281 View Post
    More food for thought -

    http://www.aluminum.org/Template.cfm?Section=Bridges

    http://www.nautical-structures.com/new/dca_new.htm

    And as for the aerial manufacturers who have never had an aerial fail due to heat exposure or a manufacturers defect........thats right, they use aluminum!! (and one uses the box boom construction that you find on most cranes!)

    Just having fun.......PLEASE nobody take this post as anything else!!
    Quote Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM View Post
    Let’s have more fun
    Raising the temperature of Aluminum 6061T-6 to only 250° F will result in a 10% Yield Strength reduction. Since Safety Factor is COMPLETELY dependent upon Yield Strength, what happens to your Safety factor on that ladder? Raise it to 300° and whoops! Now you have a Yield Strength reduction of about 22%. Looks like your safety factor is gone.

    Raising even low grade Steel to 300° F will not even decrease the Yield Strength by ½%.

    Aluminum has no fatigue life – it cracks like glass when cyclically loaded. Conclusion? Aluminum sucks in a “true type ladder” design (3 sided).

    Now knowing the above facts about strength reduction during heating, someone needs to tell me whose modern steel ladder failed due to heat exposure, while an aluminum ladder with heat stickers and made of beer cans made it through the fire ?
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    You must consider all of the properties of the metal, not just one. You have not made a comparison of thermal conductivity, absorptivity, reflectivity, heat capacity, and reheating. Your statement above does not discuss the time needed to get the core temperature of the aluminum to 250 degrees, or 300 degrees.

    Also, please note that the steel platform manufacturers use aluminum as the heat shield to protect the firefighters, not steel. You will notice, that it does not melt when subjected to the same heat that the steel device is fighting. Even the E-ONE Bronto, a steel platform, has aluminum heat shields.

    The wiring, lenses, and the paint on the steel aerial will fail long before the aluminum structure.

    I don't believe E-ONE, Sutphen and Pierce would survive very long if their aerials could not handle the heat.

  2. #2
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    ::::You must consider all of the properties of the metal, not just one.:::: >Actually I stated info about THREE Mechanical Properties. Yield / Tensile Strength & Fatigue Limit & Annealing Point.<

    ::::You have not made a comparison of thermal conductivity, absorptivity, reflectivity, heat capacity, and reheating.:::: >True because all these PHYSICAL properties you mention take second stage to the 3 MECHANICAL properties I stated above in a structural aerial device. **ALL EXCEPT ONE, “Reheating”. Tell everyone here how each time aluminum is heated by radiant heat – it’s yield strength gets lower and does not rebound – it gets softer and softer each time. Where is your safety factor now? You don’t even have to heat Aluminum – it’s yield strength disappears over time all by itself.<

    ::::Also, please note that the steel platform manufacturers use aluminum as the heat shield to protect the firefighters, not steel. You will notice, that it does not melt when subjected to the same heat that the steel device is fighting. Even the E-ONE Bronto, a steel platform, has aluminum heat shields.:::: >Aluminum in the right application is great – now tell everyone here how structural a “heat shield” is. Does a heat shield need to maintain its “Safety Factor” when it is exposed to radiant heat? Does a ladder section? There is your answer. By the way – Aluminum in a “fulcrum” area is as wrong as you can get – the fatigue life of aluminum is very limited – cracks compromising safety will occur. Steel’s fatigue life approaches infinity when cyclically loading – it is the correct material for aerial fulcrum areas.<

    ::::The wiring, lenses, and the paint on the steel aerial will fail long before the aluminum structure.:::: >If I was depending on the paint, the wiring, and then lenses to keep the ladder’s “Safety Factor” in tact to keep it from collapsing out from under me – I might care about this point.<

    ::::I don't believe E-ONE, Sutphen and Pierce would survive very long if their aerials could not handle the heat.:::: >Let’s not get Sutphen involved in this or any mfg of a 4 sided boom or structure made of aluminum. As I stated above – 3 SIDED STRUCTURE. The 4th side on a boom or lattice structure helps counter act the things that make a 3 sided “true type ladder” (insert make here) vulnerable.<

    An aerial device must maintain tight tolerances – make sure to mention how aluminum expands dimensionally twice as fast as steel / per degree of core temp raise.

    The real truth is that in the end, the safety factor of aluminum “true type – 3 sided” aerial can diminish to about 1.0:1 – That means there is no “Safety Factor”. If this happens while still in service & conditions are right - the results could be catastrophic the next time you approach or exceed full rated capacity.

    SO, ask yourself: Do you want an aerial ladder described as “a minimum possible safety factor of 1:1”? Especially when you know that NFPA requires a minimum Safety Factor of 2.0:1? I don’t.

    Before an aerial leaves a factory – it has to be certified as having a 2.0:1 Safety Factor. Since NFPA 1901 has NO exception clause that says if your ladder is aluminum it has a special exemption to MAINTAINING that Safety Factor throughout its life – how could anyone possibly think this is compliant?
    TL

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    31

    Default Last Response -

    Quote Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM View Post
    ::::You must consider all of the properties of the metal, not just one.:::: >Actually I stated info about THREE Mechanical Properties. Yield / Tensile Strength & Fatigue Limit & Annealing Point.<

    ::::You have not made a comparison of thermal conductivity, absorptivity, reflectivity, heat capacity, and reheating.:::: >True because all these PHYSICAL properties you mention take second stage to the 3 MECHANICAL properties I stated above in a structural aerial device. **ALL EXCEPT ONE, “Reheating”. Tell everyone here how each time aluminum is heated by radiant heat – it’s yield strength gets lower and does not rebound – it gets softer and softer each time. Where is your safety factor now? You don’t even have to heat Aluminum – it’s yield strength disappears over time all by itself.<

    ::::Also, please note that the steel platform manufacturers use aluminum as the heat shield to protect the firefighters, not steel. You will notice, that it does not melt when subjected to the same heat that the steel device is fighting. Even the E-ONE Bronto, a steel platform, has aluminum heat shields.:::: >Aluminum in the right application is great – now tell everyone here how structural a “heat shield” is. Does a heat shield need to maintain its “Safety Factor” when it is exposed to radiant heat? Does a ladder section? There is your answer. By the way – Aluminum in a “fulcrum” area is as wrong as you can get – the fatigue life of aluminum is very limited – cracks compromising safety will occur. Steel’s fatigue life approaches infinity when cyclically loading – it is the correct material for aerial fulcrum areas.<

    ::::The wiring, lenses, and the paint on the steel aerial will fail long before the aluminum structure.:::: >If I was depending on the paint, the wiring, and then lenses to keep the ladder’s “Safety Factor” in tact to keep it from collapsing out from under me – I might care about this point.<

    ::::I don't believe E-ONE, Sutphen and Pierce would survive very long if their aerials could not handle the heat.:::: >Let’s not get Sutphen involved in this or any mfg of a 4 sided boom or structure made of aluminum. As I stated above – 3 SIDED STRUCTURE. The 4th side on a boom or lattice structure helps counter act the things that make a 3 sided “true type ladder” (insert make here) vulnerable.<

    An aerial device must maintain tight tolerances – make sure to mention how aluminum expands dimensionally twice as fast as steel / per degree of core temp raise.

    The real truth is that in the end, the safety factor of aluminum “true type – 3 sided” aerial can diminish to about 1.0:1 – That means there is no “Safety Factor”. If this happens while still in service & conditions are right - the results could be catastrophic the next time you approach or exceed full rated capacity.

    SO, ask yourself: Do you want an aerial ladder described as “a minimum possible safety factor of 1:1”? Especially when you know that NFPA requires a minimum Safety Factor of 2.0:1? I don’t.

    Before an aerial leaves a factory – it has to be certified as having a 2.0:1 Safety Factor. Since NFPA 1901 has NO exception clause that says if your ladder is aluminum it has a special exemption to MAINTAINING that Safety Factor throughout its life – how could anyone possibly think this is compliant?
    TL
    Tim,

    The physical and mechanical properties of metals must both be considered during the design of any product, be it an aerial device, a building, or any structure that contains metal. This is why we have mechanical and design engineers. Every time we leave the ground in one of their devices, we put our trust in their ability to design a device that is safe.

    The combination of both the physical and mechanical properties define the failing point. Temperature alone is not the only factor. The metal's ability to handle the ambient heat seen during a fire is dependant on all of the properties. That is, how much heat is reflected versus absorbed, the rate at which heat is transferred to cooler parts of the structure, and at what rate that heat transfer happens. These combine to keep the core temperature of the aluminum at a rate far less than needed to cause any issues.

    Your mention of expansion, deflection, and all of the other properties are all taken into consideration during the design process. Even in a full annealed state, the E-ONE aerial maintains it's ability to maintain a full tip load.

    My reason for mentioning the heat shield on a platform was simply to state that if aluminum was suspect to failure because of ambient heat, this would be the first place it would happen. The heat shield is very thin and is subjected to the most constant heat. This would be the best chance to raise the core temperature of the aluminum to a dangerous level, and it just does not happen.

    I do not think that departments like Memphis, TN and St. Augustine, FL would disagree with your statement that the aluminum aerial will not pass the test of time. St. Augustine owns one of the first E-ONE aluminum aerials ever built and was just recently moved out of front line service to reserve status. Memphis has had aluminum aerials since the Peter Pirsch days.

    You imply in your email that E-ONE is not meeting the NFPA standards when the aerial leaves the factory by stating "how can anyone think that it is compliant?" UL test every aerial device before it leaves E-ONE and issues a third party certificate stating so.

    I put my life on the line everytime I leave the ground in an E-ONE aerial, and I never, never, never, question whether it is safe or not.

    In reference to the attached picture, that's 1800 lbs hanging off the bucket and the truck remains stable even with the front tires off the ground.

    I know you are passionate about your position and I expect that you will again bash the aluminum products. As you will notice, steel products were not mentioned in my response.

    Good luck,
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  4. #4
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    Tim, The physical and mechanical properties of metals must both be considered during the design of any product, be it an aerial device, a building, or any structure that contains metal. The combination of both the physical and mechanical properties define the failing point. Temperature alone is not the only factor.
    True, but certain properties will take precedence depending on the product’s intended purpose. Others will be secondary. Good engineering dictates this.
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    These combine to keep the core temperature of the aluminum at a rate far less than needed to cause any issues.
    Core temperature is not the issue, radiant heat is. Steel itself has good heat reflectivity, just not as much as AL. But then again since AL will melt at 800F-1100F and it takes over 3000F to melt HSLA steel; steel doesn’t need to reflect heat as well as aluminum.

    Radiant temps exceeding 250F will reach an aerial structure in a serious fire and it will anneal an aluminum aerial – it won’t even touch steel which would have to have radiant heat well over 1100F before it will appreciably anneal. The aluminum aerial’s core temp does not need to reach 250F for annealing to occur – radiant heat will do it. There is no visible way to even know an aluminum aerial has been heat compromised, heat stickers are insufficient and turn dark over time or just from sunlight. Heat damage on an Aluminum aerial is cumulative, it is non-existent on a steel aerial – My point? Any annealing is unacceptable where “Safety Factor” must remain unchanged.
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    Your mention of expansion, deflection, and all of the other properties are all taken into consideration during the design process. Even in a full annealed state, the E-ONE aerial maintains it's ability to maintain a full tip load.
    Yes – as I stated, when fully annealed the “Safety Factor” can go down to 1.0:1 on a "true type" alum. aerial. What that means to a user is if he uses an aluminum aerial in that condition, and he goes past his rated capacity even once – permanent material defamation (bending) WILL occur. I never did mention deflection, but I am glad you brought it up. Put two aerials out at full extension and zero degrees elevation. Load them with full rated capacity. Look at the deflection of the structure. The aluminum ladder will deflect twice as much, and that can mean over 3’ of downward movement at the tip.
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    You imply in your email that E-ONE is not meeting the NFPA standards when the aerial leaves the factory by stating "how can anyone think that it is compliant?" UL test every aerial device before it leaves E-ONE and issues a third party certificate stating so.
    .Actually I never mentioned E-one. I agree with what you said about UL testing – I used to work for UL . However this testing has nothing to do with “Safety Factors”. Only Stability Factors as your picture shows below. For “Safety Factor” testing – testing companies will accept paperwork.

    I am not implying noncompliance when an Aluminum aerial is new and the material hasn’t had time to anneal or fatigue. What I am saying is after normal usage – your aluminum aerial will no longer have your claimed “Safety Factor”. Get an aluminum true type aerial ladder that has been in service a few years – say 10, and been in a couple fires – put your strain gauges on it, and re-test it for safety factor. The results you get will not meet the 2.0:1 Safety Factor requirement by NFPA standard that it was built under. What do you have then? A non-compliant aerial.

    The problem is the “Standards” leave it to the MFG to set forth the test method for their own aerial. And even though the engineers (should) know the aluminum will anneal to a point where it dips BELOW a 2.0:1 Safety Factor, there is no way they are going to tell people to test for that after suspected heat damage. Cost VS. possible liability. So if an aerial that is 10 years old has annealed and no longer meets its required 2.0: Safety Factor….Who’s going to know? (unless it fails)

    Re-testing for safety factor verification would require another strain gauge test, or at the very least eddy current to determine material properties (or another test). Both are cost prohibitive so it isn’t going to happen. Surface hardness testing doesn’t really cut it. The standards do not address the “disappearing” Safety Factor of annealed “true type aluminum aerials” and they don’t require the MFG to do so either.

    The factory test with 1,800 lbs on it you show below will never happen again with UL there unless it comes back to the factory for re-cert. – it’s a onetime deal with a new aerial. UL Field Reps. Will never put more than the official rated load on that aerial again during NFPA in service testing.

    I am sure you know that is a “stability” test picture which brings another point forward. Why isn’t that aerial off the side? Any aerial device can stay stable when working over the cab or over the rear. All the steel aerials I ever tested were tested with the same or more weight at the tip while the ladder was directly off the side of the truck at zero degrees, full extension. Your e-one in the picture is over the cab and at about 5 degrees elevation. ???
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    In reference to the attached picture, that's 1800 lbs hanging off the bucket and the truck remains stable even with the front tires off the ground.
    The trucks front tires being up actually have nothing to do with stability – the relatively high angle of the aerial, the fact it is in-line with the chassis, and the fact that the whole truck was “pre-cambered” in a reverse direction of the applied load are why that truck is stable in that position.
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    I know you are passionate about your position and I expect that you will again bash the aluminum products.
    I appreciate the guts it takes to go to the mat on this subject , I’m not bashing. I just like the challenge of debunking the myths. I take it you work for E One?
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    As you will notice, steel products were not mentioned in my response.
    If you're goin to talk about one VS. the other, how can you neglect to point out what you know about the other? But if you want to try to claim the "high ground" - that's ok with me. I like to speak plainly instead. Speaking the truth shouldn't be confussed with "bashing". TL

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM View Post
    The problem is the “Standards” leave it to the MFG to set forth the test method for their own aerial. And even though the engineers (should) know the aluminum will anneal to a point where it dips BELOW a 2.0:1 Safety Factor, there is no way they are going to tell people to test for that after suspected heat damage. Cost VS. possible liability. So if an aerial that is 10 years old has annealed and no longer meets its required 2.0: Safety Factor….Who’s going to know? (unless it fails) TL
    E-ONE has been building aluminum aerials since the late 70's. We have a history of zero aerial failures and zero tip overs. I think this safety record speaks for the ability of our design engineers to understand the aluminum properties and to build a product that stands up to the test of time. I'll take experience over theory anytime.

    Quote Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM View Post
    The factory test with 1,800 lbs on it you show below will never happen again with UL there unless it comes back to the factory for re-cert. – it’s a onetime deal with a new aerial. UL Field Reps. Will never put more than the official rated load on that aerial again during NFPA in service testing.

    I am sure you know that is a “stability” test picture which brings another point forward. Why isn’t that aerial off the side? Any aerial device can stay stable when working over the cab or over the rear. All the steel aerials I ever tested were tested with the same or more weight at the tip while the ladder was directly off the side of the truck at zero degrees, full extension. Your e-one in the picture is over the cab and at about 5 degrees elevation. ???
    The trucks front tires being up actually have nothing to do with stability – the relatively high angle of the aerial, the fact it is in-line with the chassis, and the fact that the whole truck was “pre-cambered” in a reverse direction of the applied load are why that truck is stable in that position. TL
    In reference to the picture, the truck and the aerial were not purposely set up at certain angles to affect stability. We exceed NFPA on our design requirements, we don't just meet them. I ask that you take the time to really check out how stable the E-ONE aluminum aerials are during the complete 360 degrees of rotation, set up on slopes and/or grades, with the aerial at negative or positive operation angles, with or without water flowing. We feel we build the most stable aerial in the market and we demo this to customers each and every day.

    You state that the front tires being off the ground does not affect stability. I would ask that you research this just a little more. Some Operation Manuals specifically state stability is affected and the tip load must be reduced in order to operate with this set up. This is not an issue with E-ONE. That is the reason for the picture. Nothing else.

    Until proven otherwise, I will trust in our design, performance, and safety record.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    869

    Angry sick of aluminum vs. steel rant

    Give it a rest. Your anti-aluminum propoganda is getting old. So don't buy an aluminum aerial.

    At least when we raise our aluminum aerial we don't hear the rust particles running down the inside of the ladder rails like our previous steel unit.

    I think the fact that Pierce capitulated and started designing and selling aluminum aerials after 20 years of spewing the same anti-aluminum propoganda as you kinda tells the real story.

    And by the way, don't fly, them planes, ther'e ALUMINUM!

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    151

    Default Proof is in the Pudding

    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthre...ladder+failure

    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthre...ladder+failure

    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthre...aerial+failure


    Just look at the facts and you will soon see that the majority of aerial failures are from steel aerials. I do not even know of an aluminum aerial failure. I can sit here and act like I am a scientist and spout off a bunch of blah blah but I'd rather not bore you. Fact is that E-One has a 2 1/2 to 1 Structural Safety Factor and I have personally put these kinds of loads to the test. I would not hesitate to put 4 people on one side of the tip of a 75' E-One. Just give up the 50's "steel is stronger and better why dont they build bridges out of aluminum" even Pierce has dropped that line. Please give it up!!

  8. #8
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    (jake2415 & donethat)
    Gentlemen, there was no whining on this thread until your comments. I would suggest if you don’t like to hear an aluminum guy and a steel believer discuss things – go elsewhere. No one made you read this thread.

    All I did was move the thread so it would not take over another thread which was the right thing to do.

    – If you don’t like the original subject talk to “Quint23”. He brought the subject up to get a discussion going because this is a DISCUSSION BOARD. And two people were discussing it till you came along.

    So keep your little red faces and frowns to yourself – grow up.

    Enough of that – back to the discussion.

  9. #9
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Thumbs up

    “turfdurf2”: Well, my profile identifies me and I stand behind what I say. The facts I stated are all true and can be found in engineering manuals and metallurgy books everywhere. Your a region mgr for e-one so I will give you credit for being smooth. But being safety oriented and being sales oriented are two completely different things.

    Instead of
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    “I'll take experience over theory anytime.”
    (when it’s really not theory – it is fact), why don’t you state some facts yourself? Back it with numbers and metallurgy. I have and will back mine up with facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    “You state that the front tires being off the ground does not affect stability. I would ask that you research this just a little more.”
    Each Mfg has their own preferred setup and front tires being off the ground alone DOES NOT affect stability – to say otherwise is misleading. Your picture was taken in that position so the customers would not see the opposing side jacks floating in the air. The average FF might buy this picture but I don’t. To say “This is not an issue with E-ONE.” Is smoke and mirrors. The manufacturers that want the operator to leave front tires down DO SO FOR SLIDING RESISTANCE. So let’s not try to make it into something it isn’t with “This is not an issue with E-ONE.” Sliding affects ALL aerials.

    Let’s get an E-one engineer on the board who can answer to the points I brought up. Creep strength, Annealing below a 2.0:1 Safety Factor, Fatigue strength, the dangers of radiant heat and what it will do to your aerial, and my personal favorite -

    - “A minimum possible Safety Factor of 1.0:1.”. You won’t find that statement in any steel specs. Why does that statement exist if it isn’t going to happen? CYA – that is why.

    I really and truly want to know what one of your engineers has to say about an “expiring safety factor”??

    Now, as for my experience – almost every “true type – 3 sided aluminum aerial” I ever tested was cracked up - literally. Fatigue was a huge issue. I have many years of experience with this and that is not propaganda. I have had many departments tell me when their heat stickers went black – the mfg just sends out new ones without even telling them what it really means. I find that less than honest. I have more aerial operation hours (AT THE CONTROLS on the testing grounds and on the actual streets of the US and Canada running aerials on up to 15 degree slopes in all kinds of weather); than many of your engineers will get in their lifetime. I have run aerials to their limit in every way, shape and form –day in and day out, not once a month or once a year.

    So what gives? Give us some facts. I haven’t seen any hard fact answers yet – just things like “Until proven otherwise, I will trust in our design, performance, and safety record.”

    Anyone can get lucky and beat the odds. E-one does a great job of welding aluminum aerials, but it is still aluminum in a "true type ladder" design. And I want to know why your “Safety Factor” expires over time from 2.5:1 to below the required 2.0:1, and why you do nothing to address this problem??? I want to know how that is deemed as “acceptable” when the aerial device must continue to comply for its service life, with the standard it was built to.

    Quote Originally Posted by donethat View Post
    I think the fact that Pierce capitulated and started designing and selling aluminum aerials after 20 years of spewing the same anti-aluminum propoganda as you kinda tells the real story.And by the way, don't fly, them planes, ther'e ALUMINUM!
    Why do you think Pierce started building aerials out of aluminum as well as steel? Do you honestly think it was for noble reasons? The reason Pierce “capitulated” as you put it was to grab a bigger market share – nothing else. So did E-One “capitulate” by buying the Bronto design??????? Ridiculous, Get wise. ((((For future reference planes are largely titanium alloy - not aluminum and it is like comparing apples to oranges))))

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    I can sit here and act like I am a scientist and spout off a bunch of blah blah but I'd rather not bore you. Fact is that E-One has a 2 1/2 to 1 Structural Safety Factor
    Obviously you didn’t read a thing if you still think that. Consider absorbing what you read instead of making high handed comments. If you’re trying to come off as intelligent – it didn’t work. - The only AL structure out there that is going to maintain a compliant Safety Factor is box / lattice boom structures – they are indeed fine machines. (so much for you thinking I "hate aluminum - in the right application it is excellent) Turns out you don’t know it all “jake” or you might be stating facts instead of copping out. We are talking about a material in a certain application - it is not the material alone, it's how and where it is used that makes or breaks a design.

    Operator error is the cause of almost every aerial failure (steel or aluminum) in one way or another. Unless you are wanting to talk about old out of date technologies and baserail designs (when AL wasn’t really even in play in a “true type ladder”.

    Quote Originally Posted by donethat View Post
    At least when we raise our aluminum aerial we don't hear the rust particles running down the inside of the ladder rails like our previous steel unit.
    Modern steel aerials don’t rust away – another smoke and mirrors myth.

    Why is it that instead of discussion and facts – the aluminum people always resort to nasty comments and “oh not again”? It’s like they are crying “discrimination” every time to avoid simply discussing the facts. Can’t simply discuss it – they have to try to discredit it. Let’s try to keep it on a factual level with no dodging and whining and get back to a positive discussion – shall we?

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    151

    Default Question

    What are you attempting to prove about AL ladders? It is well known that aluminum aerials are perfectly fine for use in the fire service. I don't know what point you are trying to get across. Soon you will have to accept the fact that there is and will be aluminum aerials doing the same, if not better, job as a steel aerial. You can say that new steel aerials don't rust but if you are a so called expert you should know that anytime you bend, weld, or cut steel the oxidation process begins. Also because there steel aerials have to be concerned with weight, they cut down on the size of there k-bracing and there rails. Lets not forget the cost to keep a steel aerial painted and keep rung covers in shape. You say that in the picture above that the opposite jack leg is off the ground? Have you ever performed this position with an E-One ladder and seen the jack leg come off the ground? I didnt think so. I have placed these ladders in this position with wheels off the ground with a live load and no jack movement at all. Oh, and you claim that other aerial devices dont need the front wheels on the ground or that they are used to prevent sliding? This is not true, most other "torque box" designs are not as solid as the one E-One uses and has a patent on. Most other manufacturers uses an open torque box design which is not as strong. Anyway keep on trying to prove us wrong with facts that don't relate to the fire service, I will work on building an aluminum bridge!

  11. #11
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    What are you attempting to prove about AL ladders? It is well known that aluminum aerials are perfectly fine for use in the fire service. I don't know what point you are trying to get across.
    SAFETY FACTOR, EXPIRING SAFETY FACTOR

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    You can say that new steel aerials don't rust but if you are a so called expert you should know that anytime you bend, weld, or cut steel the oxidation process begins.
    I never said I was an “expert” but to be honest – I never heard a misunderstanding of such an unimportant issue like that one before. Any minor oxidation on steel after welding is removed before paint. Do you know when you weld on aluminum the same thing happens only there is a bonus. It is called “HEAT DAMAGE” and further reduction in yield strength.

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    Also because there steel aerials have to be concerned with weight, they cut down on the size of their k-bracing and there rails.
    Where did you hear this one? Myth my friend. This “weight” issue was brought up by e-one specifically. The fact is it takes twice the thickness (roughly) for a piece of aluminum to carry the same weight as steel. Steel k-bracing has not been “cut down” on steel aerials. ) It is appropriately sized unlike the mammoth bulk you will see on aluminum true type ladders. Take the weight myth to the GVRW sticker on a steel aerial truck and an aluminum aerial truck. See any weight savings? I don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    Let’s not forget the cost to keep a steel aerial painted and keep rung covers in shape.
    I can’t even remember the last time I saw a quality built steel aerial repainted. Rung covers? Common.

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    You say that in the picture above that the opposite jack leg is off the ground? Have you ever performed this position with an E-One ladder and seen the jack leg come off the ground? I didn’t think so.
    PLEASE, just read. You are incorrect. I never said that and I don't want to have to spend time correcting inaccurate posts about what I said. (this is the second time in this one post) I said he did not show you a picture of that aerial off the side with the test weight on it because they do not want customers to see the jacks floating in the air. And yes I have operated many e-ones with loads over the side. It was not fun either.

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    Oh, and you claim that other aerial devices don’t need the front wheels on the ground or that they are used to prevent sliding? This is not true, most other "torque box" designs are not as solid as the one E-One uses and has a patent on.
    Again, please, please read and be accurate. I never said any such thing.
    What I said was ""---The manufacturers that want the operator to leave front tires down DO SO FOR SLIDING RESISTANCE. So let’s not try to make it into something it isn’t.---""

    (do you chock your tires? I do – and that is called sliding resistance) No Mfg “needs” their front tires on the ground to be stable or to keep thier "inferrior" torque boxes in shape - where do you hear this stuff? Your E-one rep here claimed having the front tires up “affects stability” – not me. Just how many slopes have you actually set up on? SLIDING affects stability and raising any tires off the ground that do not need to come up to level is just, well, dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    Most other manufacturers uses an open torque box design which is not as strong.
    Do you personally have knowledge of the RBM of all toque boxes? You believed everything else they said so this is no surprise.

    Quote Originally Posted by jake2415 View Post
    Anyway keep on trying to prove us wrong with facts that don't relate to the fire service, I will work on building an aluminum bridge!
    I would say an “Expiring Structural Safety Factor” affects the Fire Service, wouldn't you?? – you keep working on that bridge.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    396

    Default

    Ok....I am afraid to ask this because I know it will bring a 4 paragraph response. If there has been such a HUGE safety issue with aluminum aerials for the past 30 years, why havent their been any failures? Are you saying that Boston, Houston and a host of other cities who fight alot of fires have just been lucky?
    I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.

  13. #13
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default Call it enthusiasm

    Point taken Piper . Just believe in what I am saying and know it to be true.

    I am just saying no one addresses the “Expiring Safety Factor” issue. It’s a known fact that this “true type aluminum ladder design” can have “A minimum possible Safety Factor of 1.0:1” after just a few years of normal service.

    For the life of me I can’t figure out why anyone would ever want to take the chance of running that close to the limit (and I know it is not compliant). I have thousands of FF’s I consider friends and I always try to help my friends. TL

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    canuck1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    205

    Thumbs up I'm no expert-believe me

    I like aerials - I'd like to know more about them. I don't really have a preference for steel or aluminum.

    I will say that SSIaerialmanTIM is the ONLY guy on here supplying any hard facts on the subject. Everyone oppsoed to his opinions seems to be be opposed for reasons of Brand Loyalty rather than anything factual.

    Keep it up Tim, I am learning, and liking it.

    That's assuming your facts are true..I haven't tried verifying any of them, although I believe you know what you're talking about.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Canuck1,

    Keep up your interest in aerials. It is a very interesting subject and the differences from one manufacturer to another is a puzzle within itself. This has to do with differences in tip loads, load charts, stability factors, and many other if, ands, or buts.

    I do work for E-ONE, but you can search my posts (and they are few), I do not bash the competition. I have only tried to express to this board what I and many departments experience with aluminum aerials and E-ONE products.

    E-ONE designs a great aerial and it is a very stable device, and stated as my personal opinion, one of the most stable aerial devices in the industry. We surprise customers everyday with what our aerials will do versus their current products.

    Take the time and do as I suggested to Tim, do some research. Our dealers and aerial specialist will be glad to show you just how stable our devices are.

    Tim,

    I ask you to please do some additional research on some of the discussions within this thread. I think you will find you that you may have been hasty with some of your assumptions. I think you will find that:
    - Aluminum is a material that meets the needs of the Fire Service Aerial design
    - E-ONE aerials are more stable than you were willing to admit
    - Aerial Apparatus stability is affected by the positioning of the truck on certain manufacturers (not E-ONE) when the front tires are off the ground, and their operation manuals clearly state these limitations and warnings.
    - E-ONE did not manipulate the vehicle position in our marketing literature to mislead our customers.

    For the many fellow employees, dealers, and customers of E-ONE that has read these posts, we all are trying to understand how your impression can be so different from the reality that we know about the E-ONE products.

    Good luck and be safe!

  16. #16
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Turf, thanks but the hard numbers I stated are correct – feel free to have your engineer e-mail me, I will be glad to provide well known documented engineering and metallurgy references. You need to do a bit of research yourself.

    There was plenty of misdirection on your part (intentional or not) to draw away from my points. You have successfully avoided answering even one. Such as why does your “Structural Safety Factor” expire over time from 2.5:1 to below the NFPA required 2.0:1.??

    As I said, -----“Each Mfg has their own preferred setup and front tires being off the ground alone does not affect stability – to say otherwise is misleading.” Positioning in entirety affects stability. I work with / teach on / practice this daily – I think I know. Your picture is a sales tool with the aerial in an optimal position – nothing more.

    I do however “appreciate” your backward
    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    For the many fellow employees, dealers, and customers of E-ONE that has read these posts, we all are trying to understand how your impression can be so different from the reality that we know about the E-ONE products.
    A nice last attempt at discredit while pretending to take the “high ground”. A good disclaimer to avoid giving facts about Creep Strength, Annealing, Fatigue strength, the dangers of radiant heat and what it will do to your aerial. I might suggest you speak for all of your customers after you answer the main question.

    I do not work for a manufacturer, my opinion isn’t purchased - so I suppose you can keep your comment referring to “bashing the competition”. (more misdirection) As I said, Aluminum is great in the right application.

    You still have yet to state even one hard number or address one point I brought up – that speaks volumes all by itself.

    I guess there are some question you just don't ask gents. ... “A minimum possible Safety Factor of 1.0:1”

    That is not an impression my friend – it’s from specs. I look out for my Firefighters and I pull no punches. TL

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Tim,

    There was no attempt to discredit you. If you read my comment, it asked that you please do more research.

    Unfortunately, you have discredited yourself.

    You started out this thread by stating the bridges and cranes were not built out of aluminum. A poster gave you links to show that this is not the case. I noticed that you did not comment back.

    You stated that you have been on many E-ONE aerials and that it scared you. My fellow E-ONE employees, dealers and customers know as a "fact" that this is not true about E-ONE aerial devices.

    You have made several comments about E-ONE purposely positioning the aerial to deceive our customers in our advertisements. This again is not true and is only intended to discredit E-ONE. You have no facts to support this statement or theory.

    You say that you are in training yet you declare that limitations do not exists based on setup and that stability is not affected. I hope you are not training friends of mine.

    You state that you are not an engineer, yet you are willing to challenge the design engineers at E-ONE, Pierce, and anyone else that ever built aluminum aerials. If you are as smart as you claim to be, why are you not working as a design engineer for an aerial manufacturer? What makes you feel you are smarter than the guys that have the degrees and history of no aerial failures?

    You state that I take the high road. Yes I do. My post have been based on my experiences with E-ONE and other manufacturer's products.

    You have this theory you are trying to get someone to reinforce, but no one has come to your aid. You have tried to discredit me, E-ONE, and every poster that has attempted to reason with you.

    Sorry Tim, but I must unfortunately put you on ignore as have many other posters on this forum.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    517

    Default

    As Adam Savage is so famous for saying "I reject your reality and substitute my own". I've fought these debates before (types of debaters, not this topic) and sometimes it is best to walk away.
    Last edited by ElectricHoser; 05-11-2007 at 08:24 PM.
    You only have to be stupid once to be dead permanently
    IACOJ Power Company Liason
    When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution
    and is willing to take command. Very often, that individual is crazy. - Dave Barry.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by canuck1 View Post
    I like aerials - I'd like to know more about them. I don't really have a preference for steel or aluminum.

    I will say that SSIaerialmanTIM is the ONLY guy on here supplying any hard facts on the subject. Everyone oppsoed to his opinions seems to be be opposed for reasons of Brand Loyalty rather than anything factual.

    Keep it up Tim, I am learning, and liking it.

    That's assuming your facts are true..I haven't tried verifying any of them, although I believe you know what you're talking about.

    I can vouch for Tim and his knowledge. Tim trained our department on our new aerial when we took delivery and his knowledge of aerial devices and their abilities and limits is solid.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    396

    Default

    I am not going to argue anyones qualifications or agendas. But, the problem with this discussion is that there is only one way for FD's to tell if an aerial is safe to use or not. The annual NFPA test. Having someone talk about hidden, undisclosed dangers does us no good. As a fire chief, I cant say "Mr Mayor, we need to take our ladder out of service because I read this on Firehouse.com."

    And to think that Pierce would start selling ladders to gain market share knowing that aluminum has dangerous faults is laughable. The corporate attorneys would have stopped them at square one of the design process.

    The bottom line is, if there were failures or other reoccuring serious issues, the fire service would have ran from aluminum 30 years ago. The IAFF would have screamed to have them removed from service. The IAFC and other fire service organizations would have told its members about their concerns.

    Cleveland ran Pirsch aluminum aerials exclusively for years and other big cities continue to "abuse" the heck out of their aluminum aerials. There havent been any failures. Why not? I cant believe its all because of luck.
    Last edited by firepiper1; 04-26-2007 at 04:24 PM.
    I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    canuck1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    205

    Default Bikes

    I was an avid mountain biker for years. I rode many different styles and types of bikes over the years. Aluminum framed, and Chromoly (sp?). I always found the Aluminum bikes to be much more rigid (which was nice). I cracked a few of them, right at the welds (between head tube, and down tube, and at rear linkage points). I NEVER cracked a Chromoly framed bike! Correct me if I am wrong, but chromoly is steel - right?

    Interestingly, the bike makers (all of them) offered a Five year warranty on aluminum frames, and Lifetime on Steel/Chromoly.

    Now, I realize this is completely different from aerial devices, but does it say something about the strength / flex / characteristics of the metals?

    Aerials are subjected to all kinds of flex and movement, and are constantly under great pressures. I personally would feel safer with something that is able to withstand those forces better. The more I think about it, the more I think Steel makes me feel safer.

    Just my 2 cents

  22. #22
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    If you read my comment, it asked that you please do more research.
    Just how many more hard numbers do you want? This is one of those “backward” comments someone uses when they don’t have any answers to respond with. Imagine – A salesman with brochures, telling a degreed person with experience in metallurgy, welding, specs, etc & approaching two decades of REAL aerial experience; to do more research. You got in over your head “turf” – don’t talk down to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    Unfortunately, you have discredited yourself. -------- You started out this thread by stating the bridges and cranes were not built out of aluminum. A poster gave you links to show that this is not the case. I noticed that you did not comment back.
    Someone might want to email him and tell him I did not start this post out & I sure never said ““BRIDGES AND CRANES ARE NOT BUILT OUT OF ALUMINUM””------------------Quint23 said this – I said nothing of the sort. (all I did was move the thread so it would not take over a thread of a different subject) “EFD” responded with the links he speaks of. As I have stated before. I did not start this post – Quint23 did, so why would I respond to that? Does this mean you have discredited yourself because you can’t read??

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    You stated that you have been on many E-ONE aerials and that it scared you
    -Just foolish, I did not say this either. But I will say (now) I do not like running a machine that runs at its structural limits and I will not train people on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    You state that you are not an engineer, yet you are willing to challenge the design engineers at E-ONE
    I never said this either – I politely said I would be glad to give you referenced engineering documents if they emailed me – like I said, my numbers and “theory” as you call it are in fact – fact. Facts supported by your specs. The only facts offered here – you gave none and still you give none. Please do ask your high and mighty “engineers” for a pardon on my humble behalf, your highness. -not-

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    You state that I take the high road. Yes I do.
    I think anyone here with common sense can see your “backward” way of insulting someone and trying to discredit them, rather than bring in even one hard fact or answer one serious question. Tactics like that are not “the high road” – they are deceptive, low, and degrading ( and politically correct ).

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    You have this theory you are trying to get someone to reinforce, but no one has come to your aid.
    It has been a tactic of E-One to sling mud on this subject so no one will ever challenge them. I politely brought you facts anyway and gave you a chance. You showed your true colors by not answering one point and then getting right into the mud and blame game, I never even mentioned E-one, you did! And then you blamed me for “bashing”! That takes nerve. – I don’t blame anyone on here for not wanting to jump in and risk being pummeled – had I known you were from e-one from the start, I would have known to expect this.

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    You say that you are in training yet you declare that limitations do not exists based on setup and that stability is not affected I hope you are not training friends of mine. .
    Quote Originally Posted by SSIaerialmanTIM View Post
    “Each Mfg has their own preferred setup and front tires being off the ground alone does not affect stability – to say otherwise is misleading.” Positioning in entirety affects stability.
    I guess that speaks for itself – more misdirection & dishonesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    - Aerial Apparatus stability is affected by the positioning of the truck on certain manufacturers (not E-ONE)
    Translation: E-one is the only mfg out there (with some of the shortest stabilizer spans in the industry, longest ladders and claiming the “lightest” trucks), yet they defy the laws of physics gents. I stand corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by turfderf2 View Post
    Sorry Tim, but I must unfortunately put you on ignore as have many other posters on this forum.
    And gentlemen, I guess this is the ultimate “high road” tactic. I haven't seen something this childish in a long time. Attempt to personally discredit by stating falsehoods rather than answer questions. You responded to my posting when I put down hard numbers of Yield Strength, Fatigue Limits, etc – I didn’t harass you, you got in over your head “turf”.

    Gentlemen – the Firefighters I have worked with deserve better – Mfg’s that are first of all not even mentioned in a post, but then bring their name into it THEMSELVES, and then refuse to answer questions and start slinging mud instead and claim “bashing”…………… Well, draw your own conclusions Gents.

    There evidently ARE things you “just don’t ask” e-one.

    “A minimum possible Safety Factor of 1.0:1” This deserves an answer.

    Safety Factors are required by NFPA gents – for good reason. If the statement above was in my specs. I would wonder why NFPA says 2.0:1 minimum and then “they” state 1.0:1. And then when the Mfg wouldn’t answer my questions – I would trash those specs and that purchase.

    I have nothing more to say on this post, The question goes unanswered by the gods at e-one who brought themselves into this post – all by themselves.

    I will always be glad to help anyone out there and if I don't know the answer I will state so - I do not misdirect (unlike some) & my integrity has not been purchased. TL

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    396

    Default

    "The question goes unanswered by the gods at e-one who brought themselves into this post – all by themselves."

    You never answered my question either...Is it because SSI Aerial Services and RK Aerials are both located in Fremont, NE?

    How come if this is such a pressing issue, that the aluminum aerials built 30 years ago by Pirsch didnt suffer catastrophic failures (believe me, Cleveland beat the cr@p out of those rigs) and the ones manufactured by Sutphen, E-One and Pierce havent had any failures either?

    You said not to include Sutphen in the discussion before, but they do make straight aerials. Here is a photo of one from their website.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by firepiper1; 04-26-2007 at 05:46 PM.
    I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.

  24. #24
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont NE
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firepiper1 View Post
    "The question goes unanswered by the gods at e-one who brought themselves into this post – all by themselves."
    You never answered my question either....how come if this is such a pressing issue, that the aluminum aerials built 30 years ago by Pirsch didnt suffer catastrophic failures ...etc
    Ok Piper.........even though I said I was not going to respond on this thread - I will try to give you an answer. ""I don't know."" Ask God. But I can tell you for a FACT that if those aerials were tested for a safety factor after they left service - people would be alarmed to learn just how close to the limit they were actually running. Anyone can beat the odds as I have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by firepiper1 View Post
    You said not to include Sutphen in the discussion before, but they do make straight aerials. Here is a photo of one from their website.
    A huck bolted aluminum structure has advantages that a "true type" welded aluminum ladder section does not. Particulary in resistance to fatigue. Additionally it starts out with a 3.0:1 Safety Factor.

    As Sutphen says: "And aircraft-type Huck Bolts mean there are no welds to crack."

    It's a different animal all together - Aluminum in the right application is EXCELLENT as I said more than once. Sutphen has it dead on - they have engineered a fine product. As a note - in my time as a UL field Rep. I never found structural issues with any Sutphen -

    Now do everyone else a favor and ask e-one to explain why "a possible minimum safety factor of 1.0:1" is acceptable. And while your at it, go ahead and let us all know who you are.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    396

    Default

    ""I don't know.""

    Thats all I wanted, your answer. Sometimes people are afraid to say that.
    I dont think that aluminum ladders pose a huge safety risk like some of your posts imply. I base that only on how I have seen aluminum aerials used in fire departments in the US and Europe over the past 30 years without failure.

    And, I will ask E-One. Thanks.
    Last edited by firepiper1; 04-26-2007 at 11:09 PM.
    I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. to move or not to move that is the question
    By Brian787 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2004, 07:51 PM
  2. the best new turnouts available
    By navitstudent in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-17-2004, 11:28 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-15-2002, 05:08 PM
  4. Civilian Fire Fatalities
    By DCFF in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-08-2002, 08:18 AM

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