- Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to receive the latest news from Australasia’s lifting industry.
- Don’t miss a lift and subscribe to our monthly magazine.
- Download our latest digital magazine to catch up on the biggest news and developments in the crane industry.
CAL: Why was 1996 chosen for the launch of the Humma Crane Project?
DRA: The 1996 year was chosen for a number of reasons. DRA Industries was celebrating 25 years and had become one of the largest abrasive blasting and coating companies in Australia, with treatment plants in most states and with site crews.
Construct Engineering, acquired in 1984 as mechanical design build and install of all types of conveying systems, had completed the largest sheep slaughter line in Europe, capable of processing 4,000 sheep per day.
The design not only involved a conveyor system, it also included a number of automatic and semi-automatic machines reducing the workforce by up to 35 per cent. Not only was the cost of processing per animal reduced, the facility cost was recovered within a year.
The success of this project led to similar projects in Botswana, Africa; Doha, Qatar; and Chalingah, India. We quickly realised the success was attributed to smart design, not manufacture.
In 1996, with a group of engineers with no new projects and many companies closing or liquidating, we decided to find
a new market where innovation could be applied to achieve similar results, expanding Construct Engineering old technology.
CAL: Both DRA and Construct Engineering were very successful with innovative concepts, why not grow the business instead of looking to go into a complete new industry?
DRA: With our existing businesses we had a limited life of acceptable profit. The steel treatment could be done inhouse by the fabricators as the automatic descaling plant existed but was expensive leaving an increase in site work and a decrease in factory processing.
Construct technology was innovative but could be copied, which indeed happened. Low quality copies had destroyed our export market.
Had we expanded our market as you suggest, we may not be here today, and we do very few projects in conveying systems now. Moving into a new industry has a high level of risk to succeed. I refer to it like going into a dark room trying to find the light switch.
When you find it, which requires persistence, the level of satisfaction quickly overcomes the numerous setbacks needed to achieve the intended results.
Once experienced, it is addictive and you look for more challenges. This explains why many Humma owners often say the Humma team has a real passion for the Humma brand.
CAL: You chose to build a pick and carry crane with your engineers and yourself having no knowledge or experience. The financial risk would have been high with an equally high the chance of failure.
DRA: When DRA decided to develop a new range of pick and carry cranes, the thought of failure was not a consideration as success was obvious when you consider our approach.
Linmac, the developer of the tractor pick and carry, with over 3,000 cranes in the market and 30 years of development, had ceased to operate in 1994, leaving Franna the only manufacturer.
We carried out an Australia- wide market survey, establishing an Australian market of 85 units per year and growing and there was a strong preference for the Linmac 18T equivalent to Franna 18T because of its sturdy construction.
There are still a number being used today. Franna was considered a low quality high operating cost range, consisting of three models, 15T, 18T and the newly released MAC25. Both manufacturers were building cranes with 1980 technology and the potential existed to build a new generation of pick and carry cranes which we assessed the crane market would welcome.
We later found the Frannerised buyers believed Humma, with all its defects, was a safer buy.
We liked the Linmac concept and layout with an unobstructed front view for safe driving when in crane mode – and at the same time it was robust compared to the Franna models.
We needed crane design experience, so we employed the Linmac engineer who was involved in the Linmac 18T design and the Technical Sales Director who brought to the project 30 years of knowledge and experience on pick and carry cranes. We were ready to launch the Road Crane (RC) Project.
We knew the market size, we had established from Franna and Linmac owners the defects and what our design had to rectify and we had 30 years of crane design added to our team and the specification we expected to achieve with an RC.
By 1996 Franna was the only manufacturer with the AT15, AT18 and the newly released MAC25.
We saw the opportunity for our crane to take a share of the developing crane hire market.
We later found this assumption was wrong as Franna owners were not prepared to purchase Humma for a variety of reasons which still exist today.
We saw this obstacle necessitated us to find a solution which we did. We developed a Humma market which Franna could not meet.
CAL: The RC Project later became the Humma Project because the crane looked like the American Hummer. How did that happen?
DRA: Accidently, the first 18T and 20T were on hire and the drivers referred to them as Hummer. We later got approval from the owners of Hummer to use Humma, provided it was not a car. We are the registered owners of the Humma trademark.
CAL: For some years Humma 20 and Humma 25 were the only models available, then in 2010 you released Humma 35 which was the largest pick and carry available at the time. What was the reason behind this development?
DRA: We made a big mistake with both models when I accepted the ex Linmac engineer to build the pick and carry and let the crane buyer find the problems and fix them under warranty. There were issues and this was ammunition for Franna sales who pointed out to buyers ‘Don’t Buy a Humma, they are full of defects.’
This nearly resulted in the closure of the Humma project after having spent many millions of dollars on development. We could not sell a Humma 25 even when offered at cost.
Franna’s position in the market became stronger but so did the list of unhappy Franna owners. We really have Franna to thank for the position we are in today.
We went back to basics, stopped trying to sell 20T and 25T and produced the current Humma series design.
After two years the new design was used on Humma 35 Mk1 with six cranes placed in our newly created Dry Hire Division and tested on the new Chevron Gas Project for four years where debugging occurred, followed by the release of Humma 35 Mk2.
The crane hire industry, quite separately from the owner operators construction industry, was showing interest. The Hanchard trials over two years on the 25T and 35T resulted in 2016 release of Humma 35 Mk3, our fastest selling Humma. Our Humma design used on all models is Humma Class according to long term Humma owners.
The resistance encountered with the 20T and 25T we successfully bypassed by producing a low operating cost, highest level of safety in our range of heavy lift Humma cranes, 35T and 55T. I assume Humma users compared results with Franna and called them ‘Humma Class’.
CAL: I can see your approach was quite methodical and now you have ‘Humma Class’ not Franna Class. Frannas have been manufacturing and selling pick and carry cranes since the early 1980s and are still the market leaders. Humma has been in the market since 1996, how have you managed to compete?
DRA: Franna certainly sell far more cranes per year, but Humma has a much longer operational life,with a life cost 25 per cent of MAC25, two year warranty and 15 years to the first major service.
Humma, with the rigid chassis design plus air suspension, has allowed the design on all models to safely drive at over 100km/h with little to no vibration, which means low maintenance and longer operational life.
All electronics on the pick and carry were developed by Humma, with many copied until we patented the Autoleveller technology. Humma quality, reliability, safety and robust design is world class, and it is with this quality where we plan to continue to achieve.