TC as a FIRE RESCUE ATV

[Idratherbhuntin]

Any fellow firefighters on this site that would have an opinion about adding a 100gal skid unit to a TC5600 complete with red line and maybe even a monitor on front? I am thinking you would be able to use a bucket, blade or Maybe even a hydro tiller attachment to cut a fire line to bare soil. I think it would be an asset to wildland firefighting. A little bigger than a ranger yet smaller than a truck. Built heavy duty enough to drive through small brush that trucks can't get through.

So what do you think?

 

[Spudgunner]

I'm not a firefighter...I'm a commissioner with our local FPD. That means I help handle the checkbook rather than the apparatus.

Nevertheless, I've given thought to a monitor out on the front with a hyd-powered water pump. I figure a skid-mounted 200 gallon tank could go in the bed; however, the TC seems already a bit top heavy, IMO, so that'd be a concern. We live on the border of National Forest, so a TC seems pretty light for cutting fire line. Out in the sage/grass, the TC might fare better. An area that I see potential application for is within mountain subdivisions (such as my own) that have some sort of irrigation or neighborhood water source available to draught from. The TC puts a fair amount of hyd power out through its auxiliaries, and I'd love to see a skid-mounted monitor/pump combo that one could quickly grab with the TC.

In whatever form, it's an interesting Toolcat application...

 

[tommu56]

I built up a jeep for our VFD and it only had ~60 gallons and it was a hand full on the road. off road it was great
It had brush nozzles on the front bumper and a hardie gun on a reel on the back and 2 garden hose nozzles and hoses it used a oberdorfer pump via belt on the engine it worked great for field and woods fiires

http://www.oberdorfer-pumps.com/Spec_sheets/Clutch Driven 2pg.pdf

tom

 

[Idratherbhuntin]

Thanks guys! I am getting more excited about this project. I live in Texas and most of our fields are native grasses or coastal. Very little cactus or hardy heavier grasses in my area. We obviously have cedars and oak trees but our main application would be grass fires and a few prescribed burns. Bucket in the front or box blade pulled behind should be able to get down to dirt. Because of the load rating it would haul more water than a normal UTV and the all wheel steer would allow for tighter navigation than a normal UTV. I have not even thought about bumper prayers but definitely a thought. As the person that helps with the FD checkbook I bet you would hate to see this rig come up at your next meeting...$$$$. Could almost buy a brush truck for the same money but that would not be as much fun now would it???

 

[3Bladz]

I think it would be a waste. A remote on the front with only a 100 gallons wouldnt last long. I think it would be fine travelling fire roads but not be able to get through the brush. Also, I think the travel speed is way to slow. I just don't see the capabilty there either.

 

[Idratherbhuntin]

I think it would be a waste. A remote on the front with only a 100 gallons wouldnt last long. I think it would be fine travelling fire roads but not be able to get through the brush. Also, I think the travel speed is way to slow. I just don't see the capabilty there either.

So I am wanting to compare the toolcat to a utv in wildland fire application. I see your point with the remote if you are planning on putting out fire with water only. Keep in mind that 100 capacity is double what a usual Fire UTV carries. Most are only 50 gal tanks with 5 gal foam. The fire UTVs are ment to be used for access to where brush trucks cant go, put out hot spots and navigate rough terain unfit for a full size brush truck. When you compare the toolcat to a polaris Ranger (most common fire fighting UTV) i dont see how anyone can say the polaris ranger would out proform the toolcat. The toolcat will haul more (water and tools), sharper turn radius, protect personel with enclosed cab, Attachment options alone would make a huge differnce between the two. So other than speed I see no advantage to the ranger over the toolcat. Actually I take that back. A ranger would be a quarter of the price of the toolcat. By the way a full size brush truck in my area only carries 250 gal so you are not talking that much differnce in water. Most wildland fires are not put out with water anyway. Most are stopped by fire lines/barriers and back burns. Thanks for the input. I agree the monitor may be a waste.

 

[Idratherbhuntin]

^top^

 

[3Bladz]

I don't want to sound like I'm advocating for the Ranger but you can get cabs for them too, as well as Kubota. At least these have some speed.
The toolcat only goes 15 at best and that is wide open on a flat road, any time you encounter a hill or need to turn that is really reduced.
I really don't know how the tcat would do with creek crossings and stuff like that either, I know mine sucked in mud. I'd rather have a tracked skidloader.
I wonder how a harley rake would do for clearing a fire line.

I would encourage you to get a hold of a Bobcat dealer and setup a demo of the toolcat, that way you would have an opportunity to see if it has merit. You shouldn't need the water tank to know if the machine will do the job/work you require of it. I have not been in that situation, I am only relating my experiences of owning one and that will not be something you should base a $40k purchase on. Let us know if you have other questions, I am sure somebody will help.

 

[melgibson]

The toolcat doesn't have the traction required for any serious off road application.

 

[Rip]

Another thing to keep in mind is that you have to be able to raise the rear bed for routine fluid checks and maintanance, so anything you mount there has to be able to accomodate that.

I have setup a 6x6 Ranger with a 600 gal CAFS (60 gal water, plus foam) system and another 4x4 Ranger with a 50 gal "wetting-agent treated" system with 12 V pump. Save the TC for fireline clearing or such using perhaps a tree shear or grapple rather than first responce with water system.