Log In
Register
OPEN BIDS
Offline
your right the Komatsu PC1250 has 44'3" of max reach and the CAT 345D has 42'5" - so I can see why for 22" of extra reach it would be essential to burn -300 gallons of fuel a day as opposed to 110 gallons - 190 gallons x $2.50 per gallon or $475 per day more money in my pocket??? Then add in the fact that a PC1250 moves in with 6-loads as opposed to 1-legal load in most states -so another $150 x 5 extra moves to and 5 extra moves out - there is another $1,500 in my pocket. Then 2.5 days re-assembling the PC-1250 w/another machine and 2-operators at $40 per hour -$2,000 more in my pocket. All in all with profit and overhead lets just say it costs $5,000 - which is roughly 2 weeks of production - is the 22" of reach and power of the PC1250 worth it????
The larger Machines were simply created for the quarry industry because of the power.
Do I think there is a place for these machines in demolition - sure: 1.) When you are working low to the ground and you can put a monster hammer or shear on them they give you more production; 2.) When you retrofit them and put UHD's that can carry a massive tool 100+' in the air (but then again you run into an economy of scales and cost/benefit). Is it worth having a PC850 with 150' of reach that can carry an UP80 as opposed to a PC600 with 150' of reach that can only carry an UP25? How many times will you really encounter 1" steel 150' in the air as opposed to 5/8"?
Talk with Eric Kelly someone who I really respect in this industry and he feels he can do anything with a 400 and a cable a high reach can do. After seeing that he dropped 6 of the 7 bays of the massive CECOM building in NJ with that technique in 6 days makes you wonder why we all run out and buy UHD's. Yes we own one and some times I scratch my head and wonder why when I see Erics production in NJ because even on our best day the UHD can't match that.
So, what I am saying is from experience and the pocket book, you can do the same amount of wrecking work with a CAT 345D as you can a PC1250 just costs alot less.:D
The film work was excellent and The operator did a great job, and I would use a pc 1250 if I had one. That last section did roll a little close.
6:53 PM
The OSHA comment was an unnecessary snipe. I'm sure TESTA has adequate safety measures in place. That is why they are doing so well.
6:51 PM
I like seeing the demo from Mike and Steve's perspective. They both seem like really great operators, and it is impressive and fascinating to watch these two talented men at work. Nice job, gentlemen.
BrocktonPete;12169 said:
Steve, you no push over yourself. {like the pun}
Thanks man.....just doing what I love!!!
demoman518;12163 said:
Nothing against Testa but I can tell you that those machine sizes are overkill. If you don't mind burning 3 times the fuel the CAT 345 at the same reach and I didn't see any beams that were huge for the size of the work-force he had there.
If Testa used CAT 345's for that job most of buildings would still be standing. I think your estimate of CAT 345 reach being the same as a Komatsu 1250 is a bit off.
The unlettered 1250 is number 9 for Testa. In this situation it seems that it was the right choice given the size of the structure.
BrocktonPete;12165 said:
It's nice to see thought process from a operator that knows what he's doing. It also shows when something doesn't fall a part, like it should have, that mike stayed in control corrected the situation.
Mike's ability to systematically take down any structure impresses me to no end every time he goes to work on a building. Not bad for a loader guy.
Looks good to me . My theory is to put the largest machine you can fit on the lot to do the work. Size matters! 
6:14 PM
It's nice to see thought process from a operator that knows what he's doing. It also shows when something doesn't fall a part, like it should have, that mike stayed in control corrected the situation.
Nothing against Testa but I can tell you that those machine sizes are overkill. If you don't mind burning 3 times the fuel the CAT 345 at the same reach and I didn't see any beams that were huge for the size of the work-force he had there.
Last but not least - unless Testa wants anothe OSHA violation I would clip that video by about a minute. The collaspe of what looks to be the penthouse almost took out the machine. Per OSHA - demolition is a top - down sequence unless they are dealing with implosion or tripping. With tripping you have to have cables 1.5 times the length of the potential collaspe.
During the months of May and June Testa Corp. demolished the MassMutual Insurance building owned by The Hartford in Hartford , CT.
The 450,000 square foot structure was built in 1926 on 16 acres. Subsequent additions were added up until 1971.
The front historic section an original Georgian Revival building,
built as the home office for the Connecticut Mutual Insurance by architect Benjamin Morris,
about 40,000 square feet, was saved.
Key elements (limestone window lintels, quoins adorning a corner edge of the wing and a gable pediment)
were removed from the torn down structures prior to demolition to be used to finish the saved section.
Using their Komatsu 1100 with a Labounty Shear and
their new Komatsu 1250 PC (unlettered) mounted with a Jewell Demolition Conversion package and LaBounty Grapple
they systematically brought down the structure one bay at a time.
Here is a video with an operators view of the demolition over a few days of work.
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
All RSSMost Users Ever Online: 429
Currently Online:
113 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 54
Members: 3039
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 17
Topics: 19952
Posts: 28186
Administrators: JOHN: 7602, John: 6950