5 ms·

tl;dr - It's like a crawler (mobile with a boom, street level crane) but you put it on top of something already there. Since its on top of something, it's not a

tl;dr - It's like a crawler (mobile with a boom, street level crane) but you put it on top of something already there. Since its on top of something, it's not a "mobile" crane and couldn't get certified as one, however, it also didn't fit into the tower crane (tall, lifts things) certification. So it got stuck in between two classifications and as a result made it too hard for construction companies to bother including it in their building proposals (the only way that NYC would allow anyone to use it... maybe).

cperciva 10y ago
It could, and did, get approved as a mobile crane. Then it was unapproved, thanks to political pressure.
- jandrese 10y ago
  Apparently the regulators thought it was mounted on a truck, but when they went in person to inspect it they discovered that he had built some sort of jury rigged contraption to move it around instead. This made it fall outside of their definition of a mobile crane. The article insinuates that the union was behind it all, but I'm not convinced he didn't just piss off the regulators in this case.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    That version of events turns out to be inaccurate: -- Delia Shumway, a professional engineer and the executive director of the agency’s Cranes and Derricks Unit when the Skypicker was approved, emailed me that Chandler confused the Skypicker revocation with a ruling about an entirely different crane. Shumway wrote, “He’s the one that’s misinformed. The piece of equipment that he’s referring to was not the Skypicker but IBK’s knockoff of the Skypicker. That machine was not in compliance. There was never any argument about that.” -- [1]http://buildingnyc.org/crains-crane-inventor-gives-his-side-of-the-citys-ban-and-backs-it-up/ http://buildingnyc.org/crains-crane-inventor-gives-his-side-...
    - cperciva 10y ago
      That link has the best quote I've seen in ages: "We know that building construction requires a great deal of fabrication..."
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  There's no evidence of political pressure provided. There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated suggesting.
- flogic 10y ago
  Looking at the crane though. Approving it as a mobile crane seems a bit on the bonkers side. Mobile cranes are self contained units and provide their own stability through mass. This bolts to the building. Which, if memory serves, was where building cranes were failing a few years back.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    It's based on a JOMAC[1] boom crane, which are intended to be used on trucks. I can see why someone might want to have them tested before approving them. [1] http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/ http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Did we read the same article? You excluded what the current crane operator union was doing to prevent this thing from being used which seemed like the meat of the article to me.
- tbirrell 10y ago
  I was more answering the question in the clickbait-ish title then trying to summarize the entire article.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  There's no evidence of the union activity to prevent this crane from being used. There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated leading the reader to conclude this. There is a very strong anti-union bias throughout the article, with zero support for the allegations and finger-pointing. But it's well done, because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    > because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof. I did no such thing. A `TL;DR` is typically a summation of an article. The primary narrative in the article was the union stifling this businessman. Whether it's true or not doesn't really effect a summary of the content itself. To openly state a summary without including the primary narrative of the article seems disingenuous to the article you're summarizing, in my opinion.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      I meant "you're" in the universal sense as a reader. In my opinion, a tl;dr that glosses over pointing out the unsubstantiated crux of an article's narrative is a major disservice. It's fine to sum up the narrative. It's just as disingenuous to fail to point out the narrative lacks evidentiary support whatsoever.
      - 10y ago

cperciva 10y ago

It could, and did, get approved as a mobile crane. Then it was unapproved, thanks to political pressure.

jandrese 10y ago
Apparently the regulators thought it was mounted on a truck, but when they went in person to inspect it they discovered that he had built some sort of jury rigged contraption to move it around instead. This made it fall outside of their definition of a mobile crane. The article insinuates that the union was behind it all, but I'm not convinced he didn't just piss off the regulators in this case.
- djrogers 10y ago
  That version of events turns out to be inaccurate: -- Delia Shumway, a professional engineer and the executive director of the agency’s Cranes and Derricks Unit when the Skypicker was approved, emailed me that Chandler confused the Skypicker revocation with a ruling about an entirely different crane. Shumway wrote, “He’s the one that’s misinformed. The piece of equipment that he’s referring to was not the Skypicker but IBK’s knockoff of the Skypicker. That machine was not in compliance. There was never any argument about that.” -- [1]http://buildingnyc.org/crains-crane-inventor-gives-his-side-of-the-citys-ban-and-backs-it-up/ http://buildingnyc.org/crains-crane-inventor-gives-his-side-...
  - cperciva 10y ago
    That link has the best quote I've seen in ages: "We know that building construction requires a great deal of fabrication..."
bobwaycott 10y ago
There's no evidence of political pressure provided. There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated suggesting.
flogic 10y ago
Looking at the crane though. Approving it as a mobile crane seems a bit on the bonkers side. Mobile cranes are self contained units and provide their own stability through mass. This bolts to the building. Which, if memory serves, was where building cranes were failing a few years back.
- mcguire 10y ago
  It's based on a JOMAC[1] boom crane, which are intended to be used on trucks. I can see why someone might want to have them tested before approving them. [1] http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/ http://www.jomacltd.com/mobile_cranes/telescoping_boom/

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

Did we read the same article? You excluded what the current crane operator union was doing to prevent this thing from being used which seemed like the meat of the article to me.

tbirrell 10y ago
I was more answering the question in the clickbait-ish title then trying to summarize the entire article.
bobwaycott 10y ago
There's no evidence of the union activity to prevent this crane from being used. There's an awful lot of unsubstantiated leading the reader to conclude this. There is a very strong anti-union bias throughout the article, with zero support for the allegations and finger-pointing. But it's well done, because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > because you're really blaming the union by the end, even though there's no proof. I did no such thing. A `TL;DR` is typically a summation of an article. The primary narrative in the article was the union stifling this businessman. Whether it's true or not doesn't really effect a summary of the content itself. To openly state a summary without including the primary narrative of the article seems disingenuous to the article you're summarizing, in my opinion.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    I meant "you're" in the universal sense as a reader. In my opinion, a tl;dr that glosses over pointing out the unsubstantiated crux of an article's narrative is a major disservice. It's fine to sum up the narrative. It's just as disingenuous to fail to point out the narrative lacks evidentiary support whatsoever.
    - 10y ago