BY WILLIAM C. PETERS
The truck committee worked for many months with an apparatus salesman to replace the department’s aging and unreliable pumper. The salesman was there so often, he was almost like a member of the fire company! He supplied the members with sample specifications of other apparatus that his company had delivered as well as shop drawings, and he even brought a demo rig to the station for their approval.
When the public bid was held, everyone was surprised when there were three bidders. Unfortunately, the dealer with whom they had worked was not the low bidder. The requests by the fire company to award the bid to this manufacturer fell on the deaf ears of the town council. They hadn’t purchased a piece of apparatus in more than 15 years and were shocked at what they considered the exorbitant prices submitted. They awarded the contract to the low bidder and the fire department was instructed to proceed with the purchase.
 (1) An electronic level reading the incline of the station ramp. (Photos by author.) |
Many months later, the committee was informed that the apparatus was ready to be inspected at the factory. When the committee members arrived, they began inspecting the apparatus using the original specifications with the exception sheets attached and quickly became frustrated. They did the best job that they could and realized that they would just have to live with the decision of the elected officials.
Several days after the inspection, the apparatus arrived at the fire station. As the driver attempted to back in, he heard the shouts of the crew to STOP! The apparatus was too high to fit in the station! The salesman speculated that the problem was that they hadn’t put the equipment on it yet and was “sure” that it would settle down enough when it was loaded.
The crew proceeded to work late into the night loading the hosebed with 1,500 feet of five-inch large-diameter hose, 500 feet of three-inch hose, and 500 feet of 13/4-inch hose. The large, rescue-style compartments were stacked with a portable generator, hydraulic rescue tools, a portable pump, air bags, and a whole array of miscellaneous equipment.
They tried backing in again and found that the apparatus “settled down” very little; they still couldn’t get it in the station. As a matter of fact, one member commented that it looked like the rear of the apparatus was “sagging” a little. When they took the rig to a local truck stop scale, they found that the weight on the axles exceeded the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) tags placed on the door by the manufacturer!
WHAT WENT WRONG?
The first thing they did wrong was to use a manufacturer’s spec “as is.” Critical items were not contained in the document. Although the demonstrator fit into the station without problems, and the salesman knew that his product would, unfortunately, the maximum travel height of the apparatus was not contained in the specifications. When the committee members inspected the apparatus at the factory, they knew that it was taller than the sample drawing supplied by the initial salesman, but it was still less than the measurement of the door opening. What they failed to consider was the angle of the driveway ramp.
 (3) As the apparatus begins to leave the station, there is plenty of clearance at the top. |
The calculated travel height is an extremely important detail that must be in the specifications. In close situations, it should be a “No Exception” item. When the station apron is not level with the floor, a “see-saw” effect takes place as the apparatus backs in. Depending on the length of the wheelbase and the distance from the center of the rear axle to the rear of the apparatus, the rise might be significant. A pumper with a nine-foot, six-inch travel height will not necessarily fit in a door that is even several inches taller. Travel height is quoted with the apparatus on a level surface; if the fire station has a ramp, calculations must be performed.
As for the overweight issue, again, the specifications were defective. First, the axles, suspension, and tires all contribute to the calculated weight rating of the system. Even though a certain model axle itself is rated for a maximum weight capacity, the carrying capacity of the whole system is based on the lowest rated component. A set of tires or springs not rated as high as the axle will reduce the whole rating.
 (4) As the rear wheels reach the high spot at the top of the ramp, the clearance is reduced considerably |
In this case, the fire department went on the recommendations of the original salesman and specified a certain set of axles, tires, and suspensions that was adequate for their intended use. The low bidder who produced the apparatus used the specified axles, but his methods of construction and choice of components made the finished rig marginally acceptable in the area of GVWR.
The specifications were defective in two other areas related to the weight of the apparatus. The hosebed was clearly described as to the width, length, height, and number of hose-bed dividers, but the actual size and length of hose they wanted to carry was omitted. The hose load the fire company put on the bed weighed more than FOUR TIMES the weight of the minimum hose load requirements of the NFPA standard.
 (5) This apparatus might have the weight rating of an initial attack vehicle but has a hose load that is more than is required on a pumper. |
They also did not indicate in the specifications that they had a number of heavy items of equipment that were going to be put in the com-partments. Since this was a rescue-style body, with full-depth compartments, they just piled equipment in until the compartments were full, adding to the overweight condition.
HOW TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS
- To know what the requirements of each type of apparatus are, obtain the latest edition of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. One of the first paragraphs in Chapter 1 of the standard states (in part): “Responsibility of the Purchaser. It shall be the responsibility of the purchaser to specify the details of the apparatus; its required performance … and any hose, ground ladders, or equipment to be carried by the apparatus that exceed the minimum requirements of this standard.”
For example, the minimum requirements in the standard for a pumper are to carry 800 feet of 21/2-inch or larger fire hose and for the manufacturer to allow for 2,000 pounds of miscellaneous equipment.
The hose load that the members loaded on—1,500 feet of five-inch (1,650 lbs.), 500 feet of three-inch (500 lbs.), and 500 feet of 13/4-inch (215 lbs.) totaled 2,365 pounds, compared with 800 feet of 21/2-inch, which weighs only 560 pounds! In addition, the heavy rescue tools, generator, and pumps that were loaded on exceeded the 2,000-pound weight allowance in the standard.
When you begin the specifications, clearly identify the “NFPA Type” of apparatus so the manufacturer will have a reference point of your needs. The specifications of a unit that I recently inspected for a department did not clearly identify if it was to meet the NFPA requirements for a pumper or an initial attack vehicle. Since there are considerable differences between the two, this could have been a serious problem for both the fire department and the manufacturer. If it were considered an initial attack vehicle, it would only have had an allowance for 1,500 pounds of miscellaneous equipment and would have been required to carry only 300 feet of 21/2-inch or larger hose on the hosebed. The requirements for a pumper are for 2,000 pounds and 800 feet of hose.
- Besides clearly identifying your hose and equipment requirements in the specifications, insert some protective language in case the “favored vendor” does not get the contract. You can specify a minimum requirement for the axle capacity, but add the following: “Axle and suspension components listed in the specifications shall be considered minimum. If components of higher capa-city are required, it shall be the responsibility of the bidder to provide them. Weight distribution shall not load the vehicle in such a manner as to exceed any individual axle rating, spring or spring hanger rating, or tire and wheel rating. Axles are to carry weight distribution as per S.A.E. [Society of Automotive Engineers] axle loading recommendations.” As long as you informed the vendor of the hose and equipment you intend to carry, an overweight condition becomes his problem.
- Consider the apparatus weight on the floors of the fire station. Many older stations have crawl spaces or cellars under the apparatus floor. Newer apparatus are considerably heavier that the units that they are replacing because of fully enclosed cabs and heavier construction. You don’t want your new rig to wind up in the basement!
- If the height issue is a serious consideration, make it the bidder’s responsibility to examine the fire station and supply a signed statement with the bid that the apparatus he proposes will fit in station without building modifications. Say, for example: “It shall be the responsibility of the bidder to examine the fire station prior to the bid and ensure in writing with the bid that the apparatus will fit in the designated bay and will be able to respond from the station, fully loaded, without restriction.”
If there is any doubt, provide a detailed drawing of the doorway and ramp for evaluation before the bid. Accurately measure the door opening height, the interior height with the overhead door open (including anything protruding down such as the door operating mechanism), the length of the ramp to the curb line, and the distance from the curb line to the crown of the road. The other critical information to provide is the “down” angle of the ramp toward the street and the “up” angle from the curb line to the crown of the road. Inexpensive, mechanical angle readers that have a small pointer reading the degree out of level will suffice and are readily available at most home hardware stores. If you want to be more precise, there are more expensive electronic levels that will give exact digital readings. Most apparatus manufacturers’ engineering departments can take these readings and do a computer simulation of the apparatus backing into quarters at various points.
During one experience I had with such measurements, the manufacturer’s engineers said that their computer model showed that our new heavy rescue truck would clear the door by 21/2 inches. When we actually measured it, there was almost four inches of clearance. It was quite reassuring having that documentation in ad–vance rather that just guessing or hoping that the unit would fit in quarters.
CONSULT THE NEW STANDARD
The current revision of NFPA 1901 will contain some valuable “tools” to help the inspecting party ensure that the apparatus meets the standard for its estimated in- service weight. A weight analysis calculation worksheet begins with the actual weight of the apparatus with water tanks full and ladders and suction hose mounted. The next section has a place to calculate the hose load that is going to be placed on the rear hosebed. A chart is provided of the average weight per foot of common hose to aid in the calculations. This would be added to the rear axle. Then there are allowances for hose used in crosslays, which would be credited 50 percent rear axle and 50 percent front axle. A front bumper hose allowance is next, added to the front axle. A personnel allowance of 200 pounds per seat is added to the front axle. Finally, the miscellaneous equipment load in the standard is added to the rear axle.
When you add all of the columns, you can get the estimated in-service weight of the fully loaded apparatus. Then you can compare the calculations with the axle weight ratings (from the chassis manufacturer’s data label). The difference is either the reserve capacity of the axles or an overloaded condition.
The new standard will increase the miscellaneous equipment load for pumpers with extensive compartmentation—such as rescue pumpers—as well as for the larger special service-type rescue trucks. A chart containing the approximate weight and dimensions of common equipment will help the purchaser determine if the standard allowance for miscellaneous equipment needs to be increased.
In addition, a delivery inspection form was developed to remind the inspecting party of areas of NFPA compliance that the manufacturer should meet.
TIPS
- Specifying fire apparatus is an involved process. Get help if you need it.
- The NFPA standard is a minimum standard. It is up to you as the purchaser to identify areas where you intend to exceed the standard. Obtain the standard, read it, and use it.
- Ask sales representatives to provide information on their product lines and sample specifications, but do not rely solely on their judgment. Do your research!
- Low bid is not necessarily the best value!
WILLIAM C. PETERS is a 27-year veteran of the Jersey City (NJ) Fire Department and has served the past 15 years as apparatus supervisor, with responsibility for purchasing and maintaining the apparatus fleet. He is a voting member of the NFPA 1901 Apparatus Committee, representing apparatus users. Peters is the author of Fire Apparatus Purchasing Handbook (Fire Engineering, 1994); two chapters on apparatus in The Fire Chief’s Handbook, Fifth Edition (Fire Engineering, 1995); the instructional video Factory Inspections of New Fire Apparatus (Fire Engineering, 1998); and numerous apparatus-related articles. He is an advisory board member of Fire Engineering and the FDIC and lectures extensively on apparatus purchase and safety issues.
