Water vs. CAFS

[x635 4,066]

Water puts out fires, period. The more water you use, the more damage there is and the more manpower, hose, and apparatus are needed.

One of the best major firefighting and salvage tools, and this is debatable to some, is CAFS. You can make an extremly quick knockdown, with MUCH less water. Fires that are blowing out the windows you can knock back from the inside. The CAFS foam reduces surface tension, and allows water to penetrate into the wood more efficiently. It's also extremly advantageous in areas with limited water supply. It reduces overhaul, and reduces the chances of a rekindle. As far as handlines, it makes them lighter, enabling an easier attack. With proper compressed air, the kink is not any more a factor then with water.

Many people in Hudson Valley departments hate CAFS, and a lot of the reason is the lack of training and poor specification of CAFS sytems. Some departments use Class A foam straight, but bypass the compressed air system because they don't know how to properly use it. I've seen many CAFS systems in a variety of manufacturers that makes it as simple as hitting a button.

And, I know at least here in Texas, if you meet certain CAFS criteria, it can lower your ISO rating by as much as 1.5 points.

Numerous studies have shown that CAFS is much more effective then water. The main part of the problem is tradition disease. Are we really doing anything that differently to put out fires then we did with bucket brigades 100 years ago?

Does NYS or any fire schools offer CAFS courses, such as this:

http://teexweb.tamu.edu/teex.cfm?pageid=training&area=TEEX&templateid=14&Division=ESTI&Course=ASP540

[x129K 1,393]

I am pretty vocal about being on the fence about CAFS, as I am surrounded by a few departments who praise it.

I will preface this by saying, I am not intimately familar with CAFS and have NEVER been on a CAFS line, at a J O B or even training. (with the exception of flowing it through our ladder pipe at Amenia's Foam Up Wet Down). I have heard only one story where it made an absolute difference and have seen first hand a fire it was used on and was not impressed. Perhaps it was a bad example, but the end result was no different than it would have been with well placed water streams.

If I were to spec an engine today, would I spec a CAF system? No. Will my mins change in the future? Maybe.

In regards to CAFS minimizing overhaul - can you expand on that? I can see that statement being true in regards to less fire damage area, but regardless what you use to put a fire put, you HAVE to open up and check for extension and eliminate the chance of the fire re-igniting in your absence (I refuse to use the word rekindle. Aggressive overhaul prevents embarassment.

I think CAFS would be the cats a** in regards to brush fires.

Just my opinion....but then again, we don't use smooth bore knobs either...although I would like too.

The extent of my experience with CAFS;

Edited August 4, 2011 by x129K

[FiftyOnePride 100]

My department has been using foam for quite a few years now, one of the original in the area from what I told (Mid-90's). Our brand new 51-11 which came to us last year has a very modern CAFS system. We by our own tradition are huge CAFS fans, it has great potential when proportioned and used properly. There are many instances when foam may not be the best choice right out of the gate or at all, but the majority of incidents can be mitigated faster and more efficiently using foam.

An example of both..

Our last barn fire on route 22, big fire, loss of roof early in the incident (2-3 minutes after IC and first-in units arrived), the old adage proved true for that fire: "Big fire, big water." CAFS does not have the same capability to be launched as far as straight water can.

My first structure fire, chimney fire with extension, heavy fire in the attic. A CAFS line to the attic access quickly knocked down all fire that had extended from the chimney in the matter of a minute or two.

Like anything else, CAFS is another tool in your bag. While it has a multitude of applications, it is not always perfect for every situation. The same can be said for water in hazardous materials fires, etc. Everything has its limitations. CAFS just gets a really bad rap in my mind because it is an affront to the very core of the actionable end of the fire service, water!

[Bnechis 3,961]

And, I know at least here in Texas, if you meet certain CAFS criteria, it can lower your ISO rating by as much as 1.5 points.

not in NYS. Very few states allow ISO points for it, a few will calculate additional GPM if you have it (i.e. during ISO testing they determine you can maintain a 500gpm tanker shuttle, they may credit it as 750gpm).

[moggie6 54]

Montgomery County Maryland had purchased a CAFS fleet of fire engines. CAFS was thought to be so effective that they switched their whole fleet of fire trucks over to it. Word on the street is that one of the volunteer fire companies refused the county CAFS engine and people said things like "Oh they are not progressive" or "what are they thinking?" or "they just don't want to get with the times". Currently, there is a general order out to not use the CAFS system on the engines. Seems like when you run some fires on a regular basis the true colors of CAFS come out. The issues they experiences may seem like training issues, but believe me they have one of the best training divisions around. Issues were, but not limited to losing tools at building fires in the bubbles, not being able to see stuff and being covered in the solution, maintance issues on their engines,and a considerable amount of time it took to flush every connection and discharge after each CAFS use.

Technology is great and I'm all for stuff to make my life easier on the line. However it is an expensive tool that may work but at what cost?

The International City/County Management Assocication (ICMA) recently completed a study on the Sandusky, OH Fire Department. The study can be veiwed here: http://www.ci.sandusky.oh.us/documents/ICMAFinalReportSFDOperations2011.pdf

The study refers to CAFS and FIT-5 Fire inturrupters as options to reduce staffing or equipment on the road, and essentially says that this equipment can compensate for inadequate management or failure to properly fund public safety operations by politicians. We know what it takes to battle a fire, and we know what kind of resources we require, however, we have to always look at what the other side is thinking, is this what we would want for OUR Fire Service?

[antiquefirelt 994]

In going with what Moggie posted above, our FD looked into CAFS for our last engine purchase. In researching CAFS I had the opportunity to speak with the Capt. in charge of the fleet for a very large career FD that uses CAFS. His advice was actually pretty instrumental in our not getting CAFS. His feeling was that they had great success with CAFS, but that a FD must really have complete buy-in, so that all shifts would use the CAFS vs. some picking an choosing. Basically new tools, tactics and equipment is only as good as the users, and when a large obstacle such as the one Montgomery Co. has, comes into play, you suddenly have significant operational issues.

I'm convinced that if you cannot mandate the training, standardization of tactics and employment of said equipment, you'll not find success with this or likely any tool/tactic that imposes a significant change.

[ny10570 745]

I have zero experience with cafs, so maybe someone can clear this up. One of the major selling points is decreased water damage and faster overhaul. So, after covering the walls and filling the room knee deep in foam, how you clear out the room and do so quickly? Not only do you want to find any fatalities in the fire room (body found next day by family headlines suck) but often enough there are closets, rooms, and voids with unusual access that can hide victims and fire.

[JohnnyOV 2]

I've never been a fan of adding air into a fire, and never will be.

[firemoose827 324]

I've never been a fan of adding air into a fire, and never will be.

Not for nothing, and please dont take this wrong, its only an observation that I am pointing out to you.

Whenever you use a fog nozzle you add air to the fire, you disrupt the thermal layer and "Push" the fire around if you are not careful. The air in the CAFS is no different, and can be just as dangerous in the hands of someone who is not trained or uncomfortable using the technology. They are the same, just that the CAFS has foam in the stream.

Its not economically feasible in my area, just one five gallon pail of the Class "A" Foam would send our commisioners into coronary failure...wait...that might help, maybe I will bring it up at our next meeting!

I would love to see it used here with our lack of manpower, our mutual aid dept has 2 engines with CAFS and I generaly roll them at every daytime structure fire or vehicle fire in our district. But they are finding it hard to purchase the foam as well, so training is minimal (annual foam training) and they only use it if they need to.

Edited August 5, 2011 by firemoose827

[JohnnyOV 2]

Not for nothing, and please dont take this wrong, its only an observation that I am pointing out to you.

Whenever you use a fog nozzle you add air to the fire, you disrupt the thermal layer and "Push" the fire around if you are not careful. The air in the CAFS is no different, and can be just as dangerous in the hands of someone who is not trained or uncomfortable using the technology. They are the same, just that the CAFS has foam in the stream.

I see, and completely agree with your point, which is why I am not a fan of fog nozzles either. If I had it my way, but I don't,, we would only be running smooth bores on our lines, and keep a fog nozzle in the chauffeur's compartment if it needs to be attached. Combo nozzles and TFT's, in my eyes, have too many working parts, and can cause too much to go wrong. God forbid something makes its way from a draft site, through the pump and gets stuck inside the fog nozzle, you're screwed.

I've never experienced, or used CAFS myself, so actually commenting on its effectiveness or how I feel about it is pretty irrelevant. I'm just uncomfortable with the entire concept.

Look at this video - At the 5min mark, they begin their attack, and the fire seems to intensify at first with their initial burst.

Then again, they are only spraying down low.

Edited August 5, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[firemoose827 324]

I see, and completely agree with your point, which is why I am not a fan of fog nozzles either. If I had it my way, but I don't,, we would only be running smooth bores on our lines, and keep a fog nozzle in the chauffeur's compartment if it needs to be attached. Combo nozzles and TFT's, in my eyes, have too many working parts, and can cause too much to go wrong. God forbid something makes its way from a draft site, through the pump and gets stuck inside the fog nozzle, you're screwed.

I agree. A fog nozzle in the hands of an inexperienced or untrained firefighter is a dangerous thing.

There was one time when the lining of our hose started to deteriorate and the bits of rubber jammed up all three of the fog nozzles operating at the time. Cost us lots of money to replace or repair those nozzles.

I prefer a smooth bore but my dept swears by the adjustable fog type, but they cant tell me why...

Good points.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I have zero experience with cafs, so maybe someone can clear this up. One of the major selling points is decreased water damage and faster overhaul. So, after covering the walls and filling the room knee deep in foam, how you clear out the room and do so quickly? Not only do you want to find any fatalities in the fire room (body found next day by family headlines suck) but often enough there are closets, rooms, and voids with unusual access that can hide victims and fire.

Again, we do not use CAFS here, but from what I do know, the use really doesn't include filling up anything with foam. The air entrained foam allows it to cling to surfaces, suppressing vapors and insulating the surface from greater heat build-up and reduces re-radiation of heat (a large factor in building temps to flashover levels).

The reason for the reduction in water damage is that foam can act in two ways: #1 (low concentration)it can reduce the surface tension of water allowing it to absorb far more readily into whatever it touches (not waterproof) and #2 (higher concentration) it can add to the waters' surface tension allowing it to sit on top without absorbing as readily. These both can be demonstrated by adding a little foam to water and another container with a lot of foam and putting them on cardboard. The water with just a little will soak in fast and that with a lot will not absorb much at all. As I understand it, with CAFS the air helps you use less foam concentrate while still increasing the surface tension. On the other end, most of us who use Class A foam for any wildland stuff mix it at a very low concentration to get it to soak into the materials.

Certainly, a user of CAFS can better explain this than my limited knowledge or correct me.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The USFA funded a study on CAFS in an urban setting. Boston equipped 2 engines and used the system. In the study Boston was very positive, but they never invested in it. Does anyone know why?

[wraftery 1,275]

The USFA funded a study on CAFS in an urban setting. Boston equipped 2 engines and used the system. In the study Boston was very positive, but they never invested in it. Does anyone know why?

I'll venture a guess that although CAFS worked fine for rural places where water nust be tanked or shuttled, it is sismply not cost effective in a place like Boston where water is cheap, unlimited, and piped to the nearest streetcorner for you.

In my time I have seen a plethera of extinguishing agents come and go, not because they didn't work, but because after all is said and done, they didn't work as well as water. There was rapid water, slippery water, penetrating foam, high expansion foam (Now there'e a classic you were able to jump into this 8 foot layer of foam and breathe by breaking bubbles in front of your face. I tried it...yes you could breathe, but I tasted soap for three days).

All were sold on the premises that it uses Less Water and Less Manpower. "Sure, it's expensive, but just think...Less Water and Less Manpower!)

SO WHAT? I don't know about you, but I always felt that Water and Manpower were a hell of a good combination for putting fires out. And if the fire isn't going out, what do you need? More Water and More manpower.

Oh yes, the penetrating quality of these agents. "Time is saved in overhaul because the agent finds the hidden fire without you having to pick things apart to look." I never wanted a REKINDLE, so even though the salesman's magic potion was penetrating and extinguishing hidden fire, I never left a job without making sure all hidden fire was out, And that means looking and wetting and overhauling.

We are begging for more manpower on the job,but we are buying things like CAFS on the premise that we can reduce manpower using the salesman's magic juice. Let's stick with the begging instead of buying systems that are basically soapsuds and club soda at a great cost.

[markmets415 524]

We are begging for more manpower on the job,but we are buying things like CAFS on the premise that we can reduce manpower using the salesman's magic juice. Let's stick with the begging instead of buying systems that are basically soapsuds and club soda at a great cost.

Agreed but the begging here in the rural area without hydrants and paid personnel just isn't working so it's time to try and find something else that works and the other departments in our zone have proven that CAFS does work!

[wraftery 1,275]

Agreed but the begging here in the rural area without hydrants and paid personnel just isn't working so it's time to try and find something else that works and the other departments in our zone have proven that CAFS does work!

I said that in my first sentence.

[markmets415 524]

I said that in my first sentence.

That you did about CAFS working in the rural setting, I was just reinforcing the point about whether you have manpower or not, CAFS is the way to go for us departments without a municpal water supply.

[x129K 1,393]

I disagree when you say CAFS has been proven in our area. Some good use, mayen.be, but not proven

[Atv300 69]

I am sorry I tend to agree with 129 on this but only in my opinion do to what was also mentioned earlier training and personal using it. CAFS and traditional foam systems do work but in reality I have yet to see a fire in the area that was impressive enough yet to be sold. Don't get me wrong the science and technology behind it makes me know its the way to go eventually but untill the human aspect gets fixed I think its not the greats tool im the box. Its like the fit five great inovation great theory but for the right conditions and the right ones only I was at a demo for the fit five when it was deployed nadda do to the wrong conditions from the start but for the lay ff / officer after that they could have given free samples and no one would have wasted the space in our are/ department setup. so even though the science is there where's the tried and true proof. Water even in the most inexperienced hands still puts fires out with in all honesty half the training of anything else I have seen. After all that I am still a big fan of cafs when the training and proper use is there but its hard for some departments to implement it to its fullest. No different then Positive Pressure ventilation used in attacking a fire there are departments that train and fight that way pretty much every fire guess what the have great effect on the knockdown also. PPV can also be very dangerous so no matter what it boils down to the company how they train, teach, fight, and think about the fires they go to.

[markmets415 524]

Dan and Ryan have you been to any calls other then the one in Amenia where CAFS was used? I know Millerton has had several calls where they used CAFS, the one that comes to mind was the Smith fire just off Route 22 where they used the CAFS and it made a huge difference, I drove by the house the next day and could not even tell the place had a fire. I have personally been at two structure fire where I have been on the CAFS line and it made a significant difference on the knock down with alot less water and alot more flexibilty in operating the line and less fatigue on the line guys. As with anything, it isn't full proof, training and using it will only make it's use that much more effective.

Let's be honest here Ryan and Dan you guys will probably never use it (unless on a mutual aide call) nor purchase it and no matter how many times it is shown that it is can make a difference there are some departments because of tradition that won't even consider it and the one time (Amenia's fire which by the way had a void left open during renovations that allowed the fire to travel to the attic) where it isn't effective the nah sayers will rise up and say I told you so. We can argue back and forth on the merits of it to the cows come home, fire will go out without water and without any training or tactics.

Ryan how many times can we talk about the tools in the box, how many guys can't or don't even don their issued turnout gear (which is as basic tool as a flat screw driver) or an SCBA at a structure fire, let alone be pro-active enough to use and train with a new tool. Heck how many times have you been at a call where a ground ladder can't even be raised or placed properly, another basic tool. So let's be careful and not look through rose colored glasses when we are talking about the good ole tool box when even the basic tools aren't even taken out of the box routinely, you have seen and so haven't I, call after call.

Dan I said our zone not area, several departments North of Dover love it, train with it and use it so it is proven to them, maybe not you, Ryan or I but to those departments that use it, it has been proven to them and that's all that matters to them. As I said in the thread about our engine, I wasn't sold on it totally either and still have some limited doubts (because of my lack of using it) but after many discussions with our officers, putting my hands on a CAFS line and talking with the Battalion 4 Chiefs we added to our specifications and it was because we wanted to be proactive and add another feature that will aid us and our neighbors for many years to come.

Ryan the PPV training is a sore subject with me, remind me when I see you next time about a PPV on attack story.

Hey Fiftyone Pride where are you on this discussion, I know you chimed in earlier but please add some real world experience you have had using CAFS and why you now have two CAFS engines!!!!

[markmets415 524]

here are a few of a house fire which was dispatched with occupants trapped in Amenia at a really remote part of their district at I believe was around 3am where they used a CAFS line to knock down the fire in only a few minutes, the images are kind of blurry, sorry, this is one of my own experiences of being on a CAFS line. First one is shortly after arrival, second is with the CAFS line in operation., third one is upon arrival at the rear.

[x635 4,066]

This isn't a "high expansion foam". It's more viscous. And you don't always need the compressed air to gain the benefits of Class A foam. The compressed air enhances it's performance by making it more "bubbly".

CAFS was developed here in Texas for brush fires in 1977, where it still works quite effectively. It is basically standard in all new brush trucks, including the State issued ones. Even firefighters in the most rural areas can make it work.

How much does a solid steam actually penetrate? 10, 15%? The rest is just runoff.If you reduce surface tension, you increase the amount of water the combustible material (meaning wood, etc) can absorb. It basically makes water wetter. Same concept as doing laundry. The cling of the foam holds the water in.

Class A foams are attracted to charred material, and will form a cooling foam

blanket, reducing heat inside the structure, improving conditions for firefighters and victims.

And as far as the manpower issue, that is a VERY selfish way to look at it. Sure, manpower puts the fire out. But last I was taught, you save lives, then property. If something can put out a fire faster and more effectively, therefore reducing property loss and water damage, then why would we be resistant to it?

And, since water is best, why do we carry extinguishers with specialized agents to extinguish diffent types of fires? Why do we use whatever the current generation is of Halon?

This is very similar to the debate about which kind of nozzle is best.

Partial Source: http://www.swfirefightingfoam.com/pdfs/explanation_of_class_a%20foams_and_CAFS.pdf

[markmets415 524]

This isn't a "high expansion foam". It's more viscous. And you don't always need the compressed air to gain the benefits of Class A foam. The compressed air enhances it's performance by making it more "bubbly".

CAFS was developed here in Texas for brush fires in 1977, where it still works quite effectively. It is basically standard in all new brush trucks, including the State issued ones. Even firefighters in the most rural areas can make it work.

How much does a solid steam actually penetrate? 10, 15%? The rest is just runoff.If you reduce surface tension, you increase the amount of water the combustible material (meaning wood, etc) can absorb. It basically makes water wetter. Same concept as doing laundry. The cling of the foam holds the water in.

Class A foams are attracted to charred material, and will form a cooling foam blanket, reducing heat inside the structure, improving conditions for firefighters and victims.

And as far as the manpower issue, that is a VERY selfish way to look at it. Sure, manpower puts the fire out. But last I was taught, you save lives, then property. If something can put out a fire faster and more effectively, therefore reducing property loss and water damage, then why would we be resistant to it?

This is very similar to the debate about which kind of nozzle is best.

Partial Source: http://www.swfirefig...ms_and_CAFS.pdf

Seth we started using Class A since 1989 when the Dash came equipped with a dual agent system, to go along with the what ATV300 said in an earlier post because of a turn over of members and the loss of several others, the lack of training of the newer members the foam system sat unused for several years. We again a few years ago started using Class A foam for grass and brush and deep seated type woods fires. Here are a few examples, the first four are of a deep seated large pile of garbage, wood and debris and 69-12 using the on board system along with a Pro-pak foam unit.

[markmets415 524]

Our BRAT using it's on board Class A system and the portaCAFS unit from firematic with myself the operator, yes 129k I still got a sad excuse for a stash!

[x129K 1,393]

Now before someone gets their panties in a bunch and calls my Chief, let me say, as I have said before - I do NOT fault any department for using it or praising it. If it works for YOU - AWESOME. We are all different and use different tactics...bottom line.

[FiftyOnePride 100]

This board is not the place to convert jakes into foam lovers, I can rehash many fires that I was personally involved in its mitigation, and the effective use of CAFS, and many others where I was not present and it made all the difference. I can even recall a few fires where it did not work as intended. Bottom line is real-life time on the nozzle of a CAFS line or at a fire where it is used is the way to really understand this tool.

I also think that CAFS as an excuse to reduce manpower and staffing for the purposes of the overall bottom line is a bastardization of the whole concept. Yes a line charged with foam is much lighter and takes a man or two less to maneuver around. But bottom line is it is the men and women who put these tools to use to mitigate any hazard, not a concept such as foam, or the fit-5. I dislike that.

The video posted where the fire seemingly increases in velocity at the initial burst, the foam appears to be extremely dry, more so then it should be, and yes, they hit really low. I don't know the % they used or the story around it, I literally fast forwarded to the 5 minute mark to watch what you posted.

Either way, I like how some have summed things up. This is a tool that my department and many others in our immediately mutual aid area use. Other departments nearby love Fit-5's. Some live big water and the ladders that push them. Every department has a culture and set of tactics that have worked effectively for them. I choose not to worry about what any other department does unless they are operating at my incident. We are going to keep using our foam because it has proven to us time and time again the property it can save and rapid deceleration it can bring to almost any fire.

[markmets415 524]

This board is not the place to convert jakes into foam lovers, I can rehash many fires that I was personally involved in its mitigation, and the effective use of CAFS, and many others where I was not present and it made all the difference. I can even recall a few fires where it did not work as intended. Bottom line is real-life time on the nozzle of a CAFS line or at a fire where it is used is the way to really understand this tool.

I also think that CAFS as an excuse to reduce manpower and staffing for the purposes of the overall bottom line is a bastardization of the whole concept. Yes a line charged with foam is much lighter and takes a man or two less to maneuver around. But bottom line is it is the men and women who put these tools to use to mitigate any hazard, not a concept such as foam, or the fit-5. I dislike that.

The video posted where the fire seemingly increases in velocity at the initial burst, the foam appears to be extremely dry, more so then it should be, and yes, they hit really low. I don't know the % they used or the story around it, I literally fast forwarded to the 5 minute mark to watch what you posted.

Either way, I like how some have summed things up. This is a tool that my department and many others in our immediately mutual aid area use. Other departments nearby love Fit-5's. Some live big water and the ladders that push them. Every department has a culture and set of tactics that have worked effectively for them. I choose not to worry about what any other department does unless they are operating at my incident. We are going to keep using our foam because it has proven to us time and time again the property it can save and rapid deceleration it can bring to almost any fire.

Thanks Chief, excellent post and well said.

[wraftery 1,275]

Don't get me wrong. Remember I said it works, but water is cheaper and better if you have a good water supply. That being said...

Try this at home:

Take a clean coffee cup and fill it with water.

Sprinkle black pepper over the top of the water. (The coffee cup is just to give you a white background so you can see the pepper)

Now take the tip of your index finger and just touch it to a little dish detergent.

Take that finger and barely touch the surface of the water in the coffee cup and watch what happens to the pepper.

You just broke the surface tension of the water.

No magic potions, just soap. Go ahead and try the penetration thing when overhauling and see how you make out. Betcha still want to pick apart the hidden spces and look.

PS Look at the rig covered with CAFoam in one of the replies above. I bet that engine and everything on it will give off suds for a month of washes. I believe the CAFS manufacturers strongly tell you that all the product must be thoroughly cleaned from both CAFS systems and other equipment. OK Where's the Proby? I've got a job for him.

[x635 4,066]

I've seen departments that use dish soap for dumpster fires (If anyone remembers the TV show "The Bravest", LAFD highlited it during a dumpster fire).

I was excited to see Chief Raftery's response, I knew he would respond and I'm interested in what he has to say. He is the "Mr Wizard" of the fire service, and has one of the coolest kits that he brought for a demonstration for my probie class. (Although last time I saw it was in a closet in Hartsdale Station 2, don't know if it made it to Virginia).

Anyways, question for all, does Class A Foam have to be applied through CAFS? It doesn't. It can be applied straight into a hosestream. I remember Fairview has CAFS when they purchased the red Pierce Enforcer demo, Engine 174. They had a fire while Engine 174's CAFS system was having issues, so they used straight Class A and it made news because it made a pretty dramatic stop to the fire.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

PS Look at the rig covered with CAFoam in one of the replies above. I bet that engine and everything on it will give off suds for a month of washes. I believe the CAFS manufacturers strongly tell you that all the product must be thoroughly cleaned from both CAFS systems and other equipment. OK Where's the Proby? I've got a job for him.

As was mentioned in a previous post, and kind alluded to in others, CAFS is just another tool/tactic, as is PPV. I have dealt with CAFS on a couple occasions, and have been thoroughly impressed every time. I really think that foam IN GENERAL is a VERY under-utilized.

The fire service... 200+ years of tradition... unimpeded by progress.