Author Topic: NEW 34 (Read 166635 times)

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #275 on:** September 09, 2006, 03:44:00 PM »

It was actually Port elliot 34 that had the brake issues in their early 90's Hino, i don't know if it was from being too close to heat. Shouldn't be an issue in the new trucks as all are meant to have the heat sheilding on all the fuel, brake, and electrical lines.

rescue5271 · « **Reply #276 on:** September 09, 2006, 04:16:42 PM »

Yes ment to have but a few have not?

and have been sent back.

Crankster 34 · « **Reply #277 on:** September 13, 2006, 04:16:16 PM »

Just went past Hino at Regency Park and saw a couple of new trucks sitting in the yard with CFS logos stuck in the windscreen. Looks like the next batch of new trucks will definately be Hino.

Anyone driving past on South road will see them, they are in the southern end of the yard.

PF_ · « **Reply #278 on:** September 13, 2006, 04:57:19 PM »

going down to do a week of work at CMV next week, is Hino near there?

Why cant CFS have just 1 truck supplier, Hinor or Isuzu.

Toast · « **Reply #279 on:** September 13, 2006, 05:00:14 PM »

Quote from: P F on September 13, 2006, 04:57:19 PM

going down to do a week of work at CMV next week, is Hino near there?

Why cant CFS have just 1 truck supplier, Hinor or Isuzu.

Because its the CFS! Just look at how many different manufacturers are in the service currently!

PF_ · « **Reply #280 on:** September 13, 2006, 05:13:27 PM »

Mazda, Ford, Hino, Isuzu, Toyota (QAV and group cars), Holden group cars, Mitsubishi. Any ones I forgot?

Toast · « **Reply #281 on:** September 13, 2006, 05:37:40 PM »

Quote from: P F on September 13, 2006, 05:13:27 PM

Mazda, Ford, Hino, Isuzu, Toyota (QAV and group cars), Holden group cars, Mitsubishi. Any ones I forgot?

Scania (no, I'm not joking)

medevac · « **Reply #282 on:** September 13, 2006, 05:45:16 PM »

subaru.....

PF_ · « **Reply #283 on:** September 13, 2006, 05:51:44 PM »

thats right theres a scania tanker.

Forgot Volvo, sorry burnside.

Darius · « **Reply #284 on:** September 14, 2006, 09:51:06 AM »

RFW and Landrover are 2 more.

I can see the benefit of standardising on a single manufacturer (it works well for the army with Landrover, but that's cos they keep tons of spares and build up maintenance expertise) but in general it's a bad thing to do that. (The army also have the dollars to make Landrover keep fitting the same isuzu diesel motor to them for years/decades after Landrover moved on commercially.)

That single manufacturer you've chosen gets complacent and you are "locked in" to them cos anything else is then "non standard". It's good to keep the manufacturers competing against each other for the sales.

Also different groups have different ideas of the way to do things and I don't see why they should all be forced to be the same. Eg. subaru forester command cars suit Sturt group (and would probably suit Lofty, Para and others) but would be useless for many other groups where landcruiser is king.

PF_ · « **Reply #285 on:** September 14, 2006, 12:52:28 PM »

how about for an example have Hino trucks and toyota cars. the trucks for fire fighting and cars for group. Toyota have landcrusiers for rural places and car's for urban groups.\

This is just an example as there are many car companies that can do this.

Darius · « **Reply #286 on:** September 14, 2006, 01:06:19 PM »

so say you choose toyota then, with several different models of toyotas as you suggest. What's the benefit for the CFS in doing this?

PF_ · « **Reply #287 on:** September 14, 2006, 02:49:45 PM »

they can create a partnership with "toyota" as dealers to the CFS and toyota can try and benefit from working with CFS.

TillerMan · « **Reply #288 on:** September 14, 2006, 03:46:33 PM »

Trucks should be the same but i can understand why cars are different, because they are from fleet SA and they get swapped over so often and it depends on what is the best deal fleet SA get that year.

Darius · « **Reply #289 on:** September 14, 2006, 03:52:06 PM »

Quote from: P F on September 14, 2006, 02:49:45 PM

they can create a partnership with "toyota" as dealers to the CFS and toyota can try and benefit from working with CFS.

yeah I meant what practical benefits? (not a "mission statement"

)

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #290 on:** October 10, 2006, 10:13:57 AM »

So did anyone read this mornings paper about Mclaren Flat's and Kangarilla 34's being off road due to being undrivable???
Does anyone have any futher info??

This years 34's are a filtered to drive on bumpy roads and what not but you soon get used to it??

SA Firey · « **Reply #291 on:** October 10, 2006, 10:24:51 AM »

Quote from: MundCFS on September 09, 2006, 03:44:00 PM

It was actually Port elliot 34 that had the brake issues in their early 90's Hino, i don't know if it was from being too close to heat. Shouldn't be an issue in the new trucks as all are meant to have the heat sheilding on all the fuel, brake, and electrical lines.

Obviously you havent seen the hazard alert which HQ put out in relation to the 34's regarding brake failures on the fireground

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #292 on:** October 10, 2006, 03:57:27 PM »

I made that post before the alert was issued

SA Firey · « **Reply #293 on:** October 10, 2006, 06:51:50 PM »

Did you all watch Channel Seven News

A yard full of the new Hino's and defect notices on some of them at the back of Moore's for guess what being overweight

They also mentioned Kangarilla and McLaren Flat are unroadworthy,and refuse to drive them....they havent been in service long either

No wonder we cant get any more gear on the appliance because thay gave us a overweight one to start with

5271rescue · « **Reply #294 on:** October 10, 2006, 08:20:38 PM »

So what is going to happen to the other appliances that came out of that run of 11??? is anyone going to check them or is it going to be a brigade/group problem??? And what about the on going rust problem?

?

Andrew · « **Reply #295 on:** October 10, 2006, 08:22:53 PM »

I would not sprout off re the seven report -

Defect notices on the hino winscreen - they are delivery dockets with the Vin number - not defect notices. The appliance are waiting to be built upon. I believe the current build is also up to date to the tender requirements.

The trucks were not delivered over weight - if they are over weight it is a result of additional equipment fitted after delivery. The appliances delivered to cfs, met the weight spec as written by CFS.

Only 2 trucks of the 9 delivered in that batch have had reported problems in the handling, to my knowledge.

Fire fighters have had enough to do with the media to know that a distorted picture of reality is portrayed, realitly and truth is a casulty.

To my knowledge no police issued defects have been placed on any recent manufactured 34 Appliances.

The CFS is a dynamic and diverse organization with many a varying oppinion. Some time the loudest voice is heard, is not the oppinion representing the mass.

I hope the truth come out at the end of the day and a local company does not become a casualty of miss-information. It is a long way interstate to get little or no response from a manufacturer, that has no local roots.

I am an ex employee of Moore Engineering and did the paperwork on the appliances (tendering and completion)and to my knowledge the comply in every way to the requirements of the specification.

Andrew

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #296 on:** December 15, 2006, 07:52:48 AM »

Well spent 8 hours at Moore's yesterday (only meant to be 3

) getting a few things on our 34 fixed and saw a new completed 34 badged up and nearly ready to go. Unfortunately on CFS order we weren't allowed anywhere near it or the workshop. But here's a bit of info i spied.
The new trucks look a lot smaller they are now not allowed to be more than 3 metres tall and they do look tiny compared to last years.
The pump setup is the same as last model.
The led hazards have now been move into the bull bar.
The crew awning is now only as big as the cab instead of the massive over hang of previous models.
To keep the height under 3m they now run LED light bars on the roof (at $3,500 per set) and apparently at night they look like a mobile Christmas tree

.
Roll up shutters on both side lockers.

But just from looking they look a much improved appliance and would rival the old hino 24/34's for height.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #297 on:** December 15, 2006, 08:01:23 AM »

I wonder who is the lucky recipient of that? Not my brigade.

Alan (Big Al) · « **Reply #298 on:** December 15, 2006, 01:28:04 PM »

I could tell you but then i'd have to kill you!!!

I don't think i'll add to the rubbish thats been going on by mentioning names but i don't think they will get it soon as it still has to go through it OH&S audit and trials so probably a while away yet.

Plus i believe the 3 metre height rule is they find it cheaper to modify or keep trucks under that height then modify their station to make them fit.

SA Firey · « **Reply #299 on:** December 15, 2006, 02:37:26 PM »

Thats how Hahndorf got their Type 2 by default because a 34 wouldnt fit

Author Topic: NEW 34 (Read 166635 times)

rescue5271

PF_

Toast

PF_

Toast

PF_

PF_

PF_