The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Pro-tech 8 Gloves
just curious to see how many use them and there opinions on them, I have been wanting to try them out.Thanks in advance
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Johns on
-
As with all gloves they are nice to start with but so far they do not hold up well after getting wet or in serious RIT training, not that many do. They do have better dexterity/fit but still looking for a great glove to appear on the market at a not so out of reach cost, also the sizing is small if you do get them go up a size.
-
Permalink Reply by andrew shapiro on
-
Please allow me to shed a lot of light on Bill's comments:
To begin with, Pro-Tech 8 gloves were intially certified and manufactured compliant to the NFPA requriements that were in effect at the time of certification approval. This is undeniable. The NFPA 1971 Committee Formal Interpretations are precisely what caused de-certification of the Pro-Tech 8 gloves. The EFFECT of the F/I's was to tweak the laboratory test method for the glove inner liner and change the nature of the test specimen for specifically the Pro-Tech 8 inner liner. The changes were modest but enough to make a crucial difference. Anyone who pretends nothing "changed" is either not being realistic, not being honest, vulnerable to propoganda from friends or perhaps feeling guilty.
Secondly, NFPA guidelines state that Formal Interpretations "interpret the meaning or intent of a provision or provisions of any document in the standard". They are not supposed to interpret the "intent" of the Committee as Bill suggests. This is a critical consideration.
Writing F/I's to determine the Committee's intent is a can of worms and likely why the NFPA guidelines do not provide for it.
For example, if an F/I sought to determine the intent of the Committee membership at the moment several years ago when the standard was being forumlated, how would that be possible if the current F/I was written by Committee membership now that was not exactly the same as during that previous formulation period? That is like me interpreting your intent! Pure guess work! Can of worms!!!
Interestingly, both the F/I's in the Pro-Tech 8 case were crafted to determine the committee's intent, not the intent of the standard! Why? Lets take a closer look...
The oven test regarding one F/I in this case is acutally ISO 17493. This ISO test is precise, clear, and definitive in all aspects of the science and instructions it provides to the lab for the performance of this particular oven test. (ISO tests tend to be clear and definitive, that's precisely why they are used.) In fact NFPA guidelines specifically state that F/I's shall not be issued where the text of the standard is already "clear and decisive".
If the F/I in this case sought to "interpret" the meaning or intent of this very clear and decisive ISO test or the related portion of the NFPA standard, it would fall flat on it's face! There just isn't any wiggle room in either to logically or justifiably warrant any further interpretation here. It is black and white, "clear and decisive"!
That is why this this F/I is cleverly crafted to avoid interpreting the standard and instead questions (F/I's must respond "Yes" or "No") what was the Committee's intent. It is clear that the limited role assigned to F/I's is abused and improper in this case. NFPA regs also state that "F/I's should be avoided whenever possible".
Want to know why Pro-Tech 8 gloves are not and will not be recalled? Because they were properly certified compliant to and manufactured compliant to the requirements of the NFPA standard that were in effect at the time of certification approval. Also they have a proven excellent safety record despite the rumors and innuendo belched out by competitors.
For the record, polyester will melt or fail around 500F + or minus several degrees depending on the exact prcessing of the yarn and the fabric construction. (The NFPA liner oven test is 5 minutes at 500F with a +10 alowance. Could a specific material then pass this test if the oven was 500F and fail this test if the oven was 510? Does seem to be possible the way the standard is written. Then you could conceivably have a component material that tests both compliant and no-compliant at the same time. Might make for some confusion don't you think... )
Human skin will 3rd degree burn at about 160F when reached 100 miocrons below the surface. Doesn't take much to get a bad sunburn does it. People don't often realize just how incredibly sensitive the human skin is. I can't imagine what happens to the skin at say 350-400F, go- forbid! The point is self evident.
Oh, and Bill did your "friends" on the NFPA committee tell you who was the spearhead for the F/I's and what was the motivation? I'm sure they will tell you its all about firefighter safety
and nothing to do with comittee member with decades of tenure trying to destroy a small innovative competitor with a superior product. Nah, couldn't be.
Stay tuned the whole story has yet to come out...
-
Permalink Reply by Bobby925 on
-
Well said Andrew. Total Fire Group has a long history of trying to bad mouth competitors with better products. I wish they would just concentrate on trying to make better products instead of always crying about the competition.
I don't understand how a company can do business the way they do. They have second rate products, but instead of innovating and improving what they have, they just bad mouth other companies with better and more innovative products. Then they end up copying the competition anyways. Anybody remember how they bad mouthed the Globe boots a few years ago when they came out, and now all of a suddent they are offering the same type of boots.
The Pro-Tech gloves have held up fine in our department, and are the best glove out there IMO.
-
-
Not eveyone will like or love or buy the same PPE products. PPE selection is sometimes a matter of department or firefighter opinion/evaluation, sometimes a matter of budegt or a sometimes matter of long standing relationships, or a combination of these. And that is the way it should be.
But when a large and powerful company trashes its competitors and disseminates intentionally misleading and sometimes outright false info into the firefighting community that is an inexcusable disservice to firefighters everywhere and the greatest form of hyprocrisy. When these same people use their long standing NFPA Committee membership and their close personal and economic relationships with others on that Committee to beat up on less well connected comeptitors, and fabricate misleading or fasle formal safety complaints against that same competitor
then I say shame on you all, you greedy power-hungry losers.
-
-
URGENT!!! Regarding De-certification of Pro-Tech 8 Gloves!!!
On August 28, 2008 the NFPA Standards Council issued a ruling that upheld the entire appeal from TECHTRADE LLC (Pro-Tech 8 Manufacturer) with regard to the earlier de-certification of Pro-Tech 8 gloves. In a stunning decision, the NFPA Standards Council rejected both the substance of the NFPA 1971 Committee "formal interpretations" and the very procedures used by the Committe itself that led to the de-certification.
A copy of the ruling will be available on the pro-tech8.com website next week and also should be available soon on the NFPA website.
The precise ramifications of this decision are not clear yet and the pro-tech8 website will post info as available.
Hopefully this will lead the NFPA to re-examine the role played by and the rules by which manufacturers are permitted to sit on the NFPA 1971 Committee. This sad episode with the Pro-Tech 8 gloves decertification has been a disheartening example of what can go drastically wrong when large powerful manufacturers sit on the NFPA 1971 Committee for decades and use their bully pulpit and connections to intimidate and nearly destroy smaller innovative competitors!
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Wagner on
-
I am now on my 2nd pair. I like them over the traditional gloves simply because of the amount of dexterity that you gain by using them, they also do not take as long to put on and they do not interfere with the cuffs on your bunker coat. I would recomend them.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
Hi, I recently bought a pair of Pro tech's and love them...BUT I bought the new model the "Pro-tech Titan's" the original Protech 8 glove no longer met NFPA standards....And yes, I saw the same "demo"...Not much of a test though....I don't think I have ever had a lit lighter inside of my gloves...Have been through several structure fires as well as the burn house in training and I have nothing but praise for them.....I got them through www.fire and safety.com for $ 60.00 and liked them enough that I personnally paid for mine....Stay sfae and always keep the faith.......Paul
-
-
David,
Think harder. You say a manufacturer torches the inside of a competitor's glove! Torch the inside of a firefighting glove??? NFPA does not flame test the inner liner for very LOGICAL reasons. Don't be so gullible! The inner liner (that touches your skin) test is in the oven at 500F for 5 minutes in the NFPA 1971 Standard. (By the way, your skin will melt around 160F!!!)
-
-
Hey Bill....didn't read my post did you..?? The original protech 8 did not meet the new NFPA guidelines so they came out with the new model the Pro-Tech 8 Titan's...I bought a pair and so far so good.....Personally I love them...Stay safe and keep the faith.........Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
Just bought them and I like them for 1 main reason. I can easily put my MSA mask on without having to take them off. They are not thick and my dexterity is not compromised by them. And by the way, if you have a lighter laying aroiund. its more fun to soak biscuits with lighter fluid, light them on fire and throw them in the firehouse.
-
Permalink Reply by Cody Pitcher Carpenter on
-
I use them and I love them. I have never used them in a house fire, but have in many training fires. I really like them. My grandpa is a Lt. on Champaign and he loves them aswell.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
