The other consideration when evaluating military winches vs. what a
Jeeper would consider "best" is that the military equipment would be
for recovery but not specifically self-recovery. The dead engine
argument goes away for the most part when discussing unit equipment
where (hopefully) at least one grunt would be smart enough to stay out
of the pickle the others got into. Duty cycle would also come into
play so the argument is a lot more complex than for recreational use.

Personally, I really liked the old PTO winches but you don't see many
of those outside of farm equipment anymore.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:17:01 UTC Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> Ahh ok. The only time I was stuck in/near salt water was a couple miles
> out on a freakin mud flat in the Bay of Fundy's Minas Basin at low
> tide. The winch wouldn't have reached anything there and no one else
> was crazy enough to drive out for a pull.....
>
> Got real lucky that day! Shoveling a moat around it lowered the water
> table enough the soup turned into sand and I drove out just before the
> tide caught me. I learned.....
>
> Mike
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> > Mike, our Warn winches can work underneath fresh water but not under
> > salt water. :)
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > I am tellin' ya, no one, but no one better tell my Warn hs9000i that it
> > > 'can't' work under water!
> > >
> > > My Jeep can safely cross at least 42" deep of standing water which
> > > totally covers my winch. I suppose I should take it apart and make sure
> > > all the seals are up to par before the next serious wheeling season, but
> > > after 4 years on front it sure still worked well last week when I needed
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > griffin wrote:
> > >
> > >>It is basically a waterproof winch that works off the steering pump (I
> > >>think?) and I imagine the idea is that an amphibious lander would be
> > >>snorkel-equipped, which means the winch could be completely submerged and
> > >>both the truck and winch will operate (unlike an electric). I almost bought
> > >>one of the MM winches but it was a refurb and that kinda scared me off. What
> > >>I've heard of them is they are extremely slow but extremely reliable.
> > >>
> > >>"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:xhaFd.13281$wi2.11584@newssvr11.news.prodig y.com...
> > >>
> > >>>I have zero experience with hyd. winches, but how do you operate them if
> > >>>you have a stalled engine, like from a water crossing (example used as
> > >>>one of their advantages)?
> >
> > --
> > Jerry Bransford
> > PP-ASEL N6TAY
> > See the Geezer Jeep at
> > http://members.***.net/jerrypb/


--
Will Honea

 

The other consideration when evaluating military winches vs. what a
Jeeper would consider "best" is that the military equipment would be
for recovery but not specifically self-recovery. The dead engine
argument goes away for the most part when discussing unit equipment
where (hopefully) at least one grunt would be smart enough to stay out
of the pickle the others got into. Duty cycle would also come into
play so the argument is a lot more complex than for recreational use.

Personally, I really liked the old PTO winches but you don't see many
of those outside of farm equipment anymore.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:17:01 UTC Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> Ahh ok. The only time I was stuck in/near salt water was a couple miles
> out on a freakin mud flat in the Bay of Fundy's Minas Basin at low
> tide. The winch wouldn't have reached anything there and no one else
> was crazy enough to drive out for a pull.....
>
> Got real lucky that day! Shoveling a moat around it lowered the water
> table enough the soup turned into sand and I drove out just before the
> tide caught me. I learned.....
>
> Mike
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> > Mike, our Warn winches can work underneath fresh water but not under
> > salt water. :)
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > > I am tellin' ya, no one, but no one better tell my Warn hs9000i that it
> > > 'can't' work under water!
> > >
> > > My Jeep can safely cross at least 42" deep of standing water which
> > > totally covers my winch. I suppose I should take it apart and make sure
> > > all the seals are up to par before the next serious wheeling season, but
> > > after 4 years on front it sure still worked well last week when I needed
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > >
> > > griffin wrote:
> > >
> > >>It is basically a waterproof winch that works off the steering pump (I
> > >>think?) and I imagine the idea is that an amphibious lander would be
> > >>snorkel-equipped, which means the winch could be completely submerged and
> > >>both the truck and winch will operate (unlike an electric). I almost bought
> > >>one of the MM winches but it was a refurb and that kinda scared me off. What
> > >>I've heard of them is they are extremely slow but extremely reliable.
> > >>
> > >>"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:xhaFd.13281$wi2.11584@newssvr11.news.prodig y.com...
> > >>
> > >>>I have zero experience with hyd. winches, but how do you operate them if
> > >>>you have a stalled engine, like from a water crossing (example used as
> > >>>one of their advantages)?
> >
> > --
> > Jerry Bransford
> > PP-ASEL N6TAY
> > See the Geezer Jeep at
> > http://members.***.net/jerrypb/


--
Will Honea

 

> that opinion is ridiculous. the military accepts bids on units meeting
> _specific_ criteria

I've got to say I've been involved in contracts before and the criteria
isn't always a) specific enough or b) correct (in that it IS specific, but
to the detriment of what needs to be accomplished -- i.e. must be a
minority-1-legged-woman-over-6-feet-tall-that-lives-in-the-mountains-and-is-named-bubba-owned
business). Cost plays a big part -- not the ONLY part, but a big part.
Ever heard "feel safe flying on a plane built by the cheapest bidder"?
There's something to that.

That said, I know nothing about winches, which are best, and what the
military uses. Just throwing my 2 cents at the whole contract thingy. :-)

Eric
<montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105513239.368519.59610@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>> MM won the RFP/RFB by being the lowest-cost responsive bidder.
>
> that opinion is ridiculous. the military accepts bids on units meeting
> _specific_ criteria and for the sake of bidding, a hydraulic winch and
> an electric winch arent comparable! the military first determined that
> the hydraulic winch was superior for their uses before bidding was even
> an issue.
>
>> I was
>> involved in government bidding activities for 25 years
>
> then you should know what i said above is correct. using your logic
> the military would be driving mini-vans because i promise they would be
> cheaper than HMMWVs.
>
>
>
>> Yes Milemarker "won" the bid
>
> you didnt say "bid" before, you said they "won the deal" as if the
> electric were even a consideration by the time bidding came. they
> EARNED "the deal" after years of proving themselves the most rugged,
> durable, and dependable winch available. jerry the bid has nothing to
> do with the military going hydraulic! the military decided to go
> hydraulic after several years of rigorous testing, comparing electric
> to hydraulic. by the time bidding came around it was strictly for
> hydraulic winches.
>
>
>> they weren't awarded it because some
>> bureaucrat decided Milemarker had the coolest winch
>
> bottom line jerry, the electric winches were failing on amphibious
> landings and the military needed something that would function EVERY
> time. you can stomp your feet and get mad, but thats why they standard
> was set.
>
>
>
>> Ever notice how nearly every ad pushes the
>> military angle?
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> it saved the company whose sales were
>> lackluster at best at the time..
> oh, you mean just like ****** did after ww2? ironic, huh? :-)
>

 

> that opinion is ridiculous. the military accepts bids on units meeting
> _specific_ criteria

I've got to say I've been involved in contracts before and the criteria
isn't always a) specific enough or b) correct (in that it IS specific, but
to the detriment of what needs to be accomplished -- i.e. must be a
minority-1-legged-woman-over-6-feet-tall-that-lives-in-the-mountains-and-is-named-bubba-owned
business). Cost plays a big part -- not the ONLY part, but a big part.
Ever heard "feel safe flying on a plane built by the cheapest bidder"?
There's something to that.

That said, I know nothing about winches, which are best, and what the
military uses. Just throwing my 2 cents at the whole contract thingy. :-)

Eric
<montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105513239.368519.59610@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>> MM won the RFP/RFB by being the lowest-cost responsive bidder.
>
> that opinion is ridiculous. the military accepts bids on units meeting
> _specific_ criteria and for the sake of bidding, a hydraulic winch and
> an electric winch arent comparable! the military first determined that
> the hydraulic winch was superior for their uses before bidding was even
> an issue.
>
>> I was
>> involved in government bidding activities for 25 years
>
> then you should know what i said above is correct. using your logic
> the military would be driving mini-vans because i promise they would be
> cheaper than HMMWVs.
>
>
>
>> Yes Milemarker "won" the bid
>
> you didnt say "bid" before, you said they "won the deal" as if the
> electric were even a consideration by the time bidding came. they
> EARNED "the deal" after years of proving themselves the most rugged,
> durable, and dependable winch available. jerry the bid has nothing to
> do with the military going hydraulic! the military decided to go
> hydraulic after several years of rigorous testing, comparing electric
> to hydraulic. by the time bidding came around it was strictly for
> hydraulic winches.
>
>
>> they weren't awarded it because some
>> bureaucrat decided Milemarker had the coolest winch
>
> bottom line jerry, the electric winches were failing on amphibious
> landings and the military needed something that would function EVERY
> time. you can stomp your feet and get mad, but thats why they standard
> was set.
>
>
>
>> Ever notice how nearly every ad pushes the
>> military angle?
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> it saved the company whose sales were
>> lackluster at best at the time..
> oh, you mean just like ****** did after ww2? ironic, huh? :-)
>

 

> that opinion is ridiculous. the military accepts bids on units meeting
> _specific_ criteria

I've got to say I've been involved in contracts before and the criteria
isn't always a) specific enough or b) correct (in that it IS specific, but
to the detriment of what needs to be accomplished -- i.e. must be a
minority-1-legged-woman-over-6-feet-tall-that-lives-in-the-mountains-and-is-named-bubba-owned
business). Cost plays a big part -- not the ONLY part, but a big part.
Ever heard "feel safe flying on a plane built by the cheapest bidder"?
There's something to that.

That said, I know nothing about winches, which are best, and what the
military uses. Just throwing my 2 cents at the whole contract thingy. :-)

Eric
<montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1105513239.368519.59610@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>> MM won the RFP/RFB by being the lowest-cost responsive bidder.
>
> that opinion is ridiculous. the military accepts bids on units meeting
> _specific_ criteria and for the sake of bidding, a hydraulic winch and
> an electric winch arent comparable! the military first determined that
> the hydraulic winch was superior for their uses before bidding was even
> an issue.
>
>> I was
>> involved in government bidding activities for 25 years
>
> then you should know what i said above is correct. using your logic
> the military would be driving mini-vans because i promise they would be
> cheaper than HMMWVs.
>
>
>
>> Yes Milemarker "won" the bid
>
> you didnt say "bid" before, you said they "won the deal" as if the
> electric were even a consideration by the time bidding came. they
> EARNED "the deal" after years of proving themselves the most rugged,
> durable, and dependable winch available. jerry the bid has nothing to
> do with the military going hydraulic! the military decided to go
> hydraulic after several years of rigorous testing, comparing electric
> to hydraulic. by the time bidding came around it was strictly for
> hydraulic winches.
>
>
>> they weren't awarded it because some
>> bureaucrat decided Milemarker had the coolest winch
>
> bottom line jerry, the electric winches were failing on amphibious
> landings and the military needed something that would function EVERY
> time. you can stomp your feet and get mad, but thats why they standard
> was set.
>
>
>
>> Ever notice how nearly every ad pushes the
>> military angle?
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> it saved the company whose sales were
>> lackluster at best at the time..
> oh, you mean just like ****** did after ww2? ironic, huh? :-)
>

 

twaldron wrote:
> I have zero experience with hyd. winches, but how do you operate them
if
> you have a stalled engine, like from a water crossing

you dont operate them if you have a stalled engine. its a trade off,
but one im willing to take in order to have the advantages of
hydraulic. besides, despite what anybody tells you, no electric winch
is going to run submerged either, not for long anyway. all electrics
are water resistant and will give you reasonable performance "in"
water, but they arent going to run long _under_ water and if your water
is deep enough to stall the jeep its a safe bet that the electric is
totally under water. the hydraulic on the other hand, will run
indefinately completely submerged so as long as you arent over your
breather (or more if you have a snorkel). i thought about that
argument before going hydraulic....."what if the engine isnt running"
but then it hit me that if the engine isnt running ive got bigger
problems anyway.

 

twaldron wrote:
> I have zero experience with hyd. winches, but how do you operate them
if
> you have a stalled engine, like from a water crossing

you dont operate them if you have a stalled engine. its a trade off,
but one im willing to take in order to have the advantages of
hydraulic. besides, despite what anybody tells you, no electric winch
is going to run submerged either, not for long anyway. all electrics
are water resistant and will give you reasonable performance "in"
water, but they arent going to run long _under_ water and if your water
is deep enough to stall the jeep its a safe bet that the electric is
totally under water. the hydraulic on the other hand, will run
indefinately completely submerged so as long as you arent over your
breather (or more if you have a snorkel). i thought about that
argument before going hydraulic....."what if the engine isnt running"
but then it hit me that if the engine isnt running ive got bigger
problems anyway.

 

twaldron wrote:
> I have zero experience with hyd. winches, but how do you operate them
if
> you have a stalled engine, like from a water crossing

you dont operate them if you have a stalled engine. its a trade off,
but one im willing to take in order to have the advantages of
hydraulic. besides, despite what anybody tells you, no electric winch
is going to run submerged either, not for long anyway. all electrics
are water resistant and will give you reasonable performance "in"
water, but they arent going to run long _under_ water and if your water
is deep enough to stall the jeep its a safe bet that the electric is
totally under water. the hydraulic on the other hand, will run
indefinately completely submerged so as long as you arent over your
breather (or more if you have a snorkel). i thought about that
argument before going hydraulic....."what if the engine isnt running"
but then it hit me that if the engine isnt running ive got bigger
problems anyway.

 

Eric wrote:
> I've been involved in contracts before and the criteria
> isn't always a) specific enough or b) correct

we arent talking computer or other types of support systems...we're
talking combat duty gear. the military decided to go hydraulic before
accepting bids on hydraulic winches and when they did the electric
winches werent even a part of the bidding.

i met a guy on the quadratec board that was part of the testing
proceedure who gave me a lot of good information on it. i dont recall
his name now, but its the thread where jerry and i last argued this
same issue.

 

Eric wrote:
> I've been involved in contracts before and the criteria
> isn't always a) specific enough or b) correct

we arent talking computer or other types of support systems...we're
talking combat duty gear. the military decided to go hydraulic before
accepting bids on hydraulic winches and when they did the electric
winches werent even a part of the bidding.

i met a guy on the quadratec board that was part of the testing
proceedure who gave me a lot of good information on it. i dont recall
his name now, but its the thread where jerry and i last argued this
same issue.