Everyone, I am looking for some opinions on fire suppression systems.

I have a 5 liter, internally charged EFFF system that has been in the car for several years. Several weeks ago, I set it off by accident due to a pull cable being snagged and pulled. As it turned out, I am VERY happy that it happened as the system did little or nothing. I have the large SPA system that comes with 6 nozzles. I installed 5 of them with 2 in the engine compartment, that were intended to flood each side of the fuel rail, and 3 for the driver.

The nozzles in the engine compartment dribbled out some foam and none of it ever got onto the engine so it would have been useless in a real engine fire. The 3 devoted to the driver also did little to protect me in the event of a real incident. Needless to say, I am changing to something else for both my car and Lil'Kat's car before the next race.

I do not know much about the options available and would like to hear from anyone with ideas, opinions, and suggestions. Here is what I have heard so far:

1. Some have suggested that the ESS brand, that has an external CO2 cartridge, will provide much better pressure and flow than a bottle (such as I have) that uses a fully charged bottle. (See # 2 below)

2. I have also heard that EFFF solution can "settle out" and get "layered" over time and then does not perform as well as when new.

3. Several have commented here that systems tout the number of nozzles but do not deliver enough flow if one follows their specs and the install needs to reduce the actual number of nozzles significantly. (It this is true, those manufactures need to be called out due to the safety issue.)

4. The gas options (Halon and FE-36) can dissipate if triggered while the car is moving at any sort of speed due to the air flow through the engine and cockpit.

I have no idea what to believe but I do know that I want a system that WORKS when needed. I want to be able to affect a broken fuel rail/oil line/oil cooler problem and put an engine compartment fire OUT. I also want the driver protected including the foot well area, hence the use of three nozzles, one pointed down into the foot well area and two directed towards the driver from each side of the cross bar at the top of the windshield intended to flood the torso from each side.

I am looking for any ideas that can be offered as I need to replace both of our systems now. I am even considering systems that have two fire bottles combined for more suppression. Please share any information and suggestions on what way to go. I am sure there are lots of us that "think" we are protected when, in fact, we are not. I no longer want to be one of those guys.

Jim and Katie

I do not profess to be an expert nor particularly versed in all the newer systems out there so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Personally I have always relied on Halon. The pressures are very high and I never had a misfire. I have had, unfortunately, to use a fire system 4 times and can tell you that if plumbed correctly and used correctly it is very effective but not in every situation.

One discharge in particular was in my GT1 Tube Frame Boxster. I had an oil fitting fail on my built 3.6 ltr race engine which for those with 911 experience was the scavenge line above the headers (the worst to fail as well as the most common).

When it went I was on the second to last corner before the front straight and because of the underbody tunneling the fire/oil was contained within the structure of the car (open top). I did not know I was on fire until my pit called me.

I had a 10# halon system with a wide pattern nozzle above the engine and another wide nozzle pointed at the driver from the center console area. That is it, just two nozzles.

When I came out of the last turn I hit the kill switch to kill all power and then hit the halon system. The fire went immediately out. I made the turn under momentum into the hot pit and came to a stop in front of my pit. Having practiced extensively with my team, I was out of the car in 5 seconds. As soon as I was out the fire relighted, due to the residual oil (18 liter capacity system) and white hot headers. My pits always have a 20# halon bottle with 3' hose and nozzle which my team used immediately and once again the fire was out, this time for good. Here is a pic or two attached. The car was undamaged and after a lot of cleanup and a new oil line was back on the track the next AM as Halon leaves no residue like ABC extinguishers do. I always see ABC extinguishers in the hot pits and in the corner stations and just know that if they spray you, your car is done. It will need new wiring, new plastic, new bushings, rubber and a lot of rust prep as that powder gets into everything.

Never expect the fire system to put out a fire, only to buy you time. Number of nozzles in my opinion is marketing hype. Less nozzles means a long spray time and time is good. Halon is a rapidly expanding gas that will completely evacuate all air from within the given area (for how long is the question).

Some thoughts on safety vs overkill. Ideally perhaps would be two independent systems. One for the driver and one for the engine. In my case the driver nozzle was useless and took halon away from the engine fire. I will likely not run this though as in my experience that is overkill.

My other fires were two 944 fires, both fuel rail related and both with a similar system and one in a 914 Rally car. The 944 fires were both 100% controlled by shutting down the source (fuel pump) and then putting out the fire with the halon. Practice this procedure as discharging the halon first then killing the power will not work.

This is a good point to add that the power cut-off should be accessible to both the driver and the corner workers and if possible the same for the fire system (not as easy).

The 914 fire was a total loss. The fire was from a Weber carb fuel line failure and improper set-up of both the car and the fire system in my opinion. It was not my car I was a co-driver. The Halon fire system was plumbed with 4 nozzles (too many), two for the driver and navigator, one for the fuel cell in front and one for the engine (very long lines). The other issue was that the fuel pump had been acting up at some point in the past and had been hardwired around the kill switch (this is about the dumbest thing I had ever seen), lastly the system was only 5# (too small especially for 4 nozzles). So end result was a pile of molten metal on a Mexican road near Ensenada. There was nothing left. There was also no help for over an hour, we were on out own and thankfully both were unhurt.

I am setting up my 944Spec car with a 10# halon system with a pull squib and dual handles (one inside and one outside). My kill switch is right next to the fire system and is easy to find by feel.

Oh and I will carry a spare 10# tank in my RV so a small fire does not kill my weekend. I also have a 20# halon tank in my pits with trained pit crew members on how to use it and how to put out fuel/oil fires.

I also run firebraid over my fuel lines and fuel rail and try to brace the rail with additional gussets to minimize vibration. I am considering plumbing in a fuel gauge as well as fuel sample/drain port off the front of the rail with a separate bracket on the engine and a hose connecting the two. My thought is the hose between the rail and this assembly with dampen the vibration of the rail.

Good luck and sorry for the long winded reply...

Thoughtful, long winded replies are welcome.

From what I gleaned from your reply, a 10# system seems to be your idea of a minimum size.

Also, I understand that the Dupont FE-36 is similar and environmentally friendly. Are you aware of any negative comparison with halon that makes halon 1211 a better choice or is FE-36 a good option?

I have always been concerned with halon (or another gas option) because of air flowing through the engine compartment when still moving. I guess my concern would be triggering the system while the car was still moving quickly and blowing the gas out of the engine area. Any thoughts there?

Would you put the nozzle at the front of the engine or at the fire wall? Again, if the car is moving, the gas would be dispensed into the flow if the nozzle was installed at the front.

Are you suggesting that you would not put a nozzle in the car for the driver with a 10# system?

Would a separate 10# system make sense for the driver in case it was needed? This would have the extra value of having a "spare" 10# bottle that could be moved to the engine system if that was ever needed. Of course that would leave the driver unprotected after moving the bottle but it seems that you are not overly concerned with that anyway.

Please understand, I am asking for your honest opinions here. I WILL make my own decisions and will be fully responsible for any decisions I make.

I will also have Lil'Kat make her own decisions about this and I will install what she wants in her car as that is not a decision for me to impose on another person, especially someone I love.

Any other ideas or discussion is also welcome. For example, are there any foam type systems, that are not AFFF, that can be considered? Is there any validity to the ideas that AFFF "settles" out over time and is less effective? An ABC dry chemical solution does not seem to be a good one for reasons discussed and are not part of my possible options.

Jim

Big Dog wrote:

Sounds to me like you had a pressure problem which would indicate that the C02 cartridge was bad. I dont think there is a way to test that after the fact to know, but since these systems are installed on facilities such as Air Force and Army hangers, I wouldnt think the it seperates like that.

Everyone. Here is an update on what I have learned, to date. Following is a copy of the response I received from SPA and my comments on their suggestions. My intent here is to share information that may be new/important to others as it was to me. Please note that SPA did NOT look at my system or my bottle so they are making suggestions based on my e-mail to them. They did respond quickly to my inquiry.

Jim;

Sorry to hear you had an issue with one of our systems. There could be a couple reasons as to why the system didn't discharge properly.

1, If the tubing is not pushed in properly to the nozzles and any corresponding tee's or bulkhead fittings, it can cause the fluid to dribble out or leak at one of the connections. Because, if everything isn't pushed tight properly, this can allow the nitrogen to escape quicker than it can push the fluid through the system and ultimately out through the nozzles.

[Again, SPA did not inspect my system or bottle, they are responding to my e-mail with ideas. I have not yet inspected the system with this response in mind, yet, as the car is not here at the moment. I will look at it though. My concern here is that there is no process to be able to install the tubing and test it to make sure that it is working correctly. The one thing I did do was to put water through it and then blow it out with air to make sure it was clean when it was installed but that was a year and a half ago.]

2, if the bottle is past the 2 year service, and depending on just how long overdue it is, the extinguishing agent can actually start to become gelatinous and separate from the water and this could clog the system or prevent it from discharging properly. It can also calcify if it has seen dramatic changes in weather conditions, but with you in California, I doubt that is the case!

[I do not know exactly when the bottle was serviced. This system was in a car that was totaled in a wreck. The tub was bent so everything was moved to another tub and the system was sent in for service while the new build was going on. It was certainly two years or more ago although less than three years.

Issue - I was completely unaware of the two year service suggestion. It was not emphasized in the information that came with the system. I am concerned that no one that I have spoken with mentioned the two year issue or that the fluid can become gelatinous so this information might not be common knowledge. I have the same system in my original car that has been in for the better part of EIGHT years without service. :( Rest assured, it is being replaced before the next race.]

Most likely, situation no.1 is the culprit with your scenario. I would guess, by your description of the events, that either one or more of the nozzles weren't clicked on properly or tightly enough, or the fitting for the nozzle wasn't screwed in enough.

When pushing the tubing into fittings, you should feel it get tight and then feel a secondary click.

[Note: My nozzles do not screw in. They push in just like the rest of the fittings. If the reference is to the main nozzle on the bottle, I did not touch that and all plumbing fittings are the push on type. Again, I have not checked any of the system nor have I checked the bottle to see if there is fluid still in it that did not get expelled.]

I hope this helps alleviate the concerns you have and you will choose to
continue using our products. We take our role in fire safety very seriously and would not have a product on the market that was not tested and did not meet the standards set forth by the industry.

My comments again from here on. Needless to say, this did not alleviate my concerns. I now know much more than ever before about this fire suppression issue and am thankful that my system was triggered by me in a non-fire event.

After much more research than I did when I first purchased this system, and hearing from both Joe (Thanks Joe) and from Ken Meyers (IO Port) that sent a number of very detailed and informative e-mails, here is what I have concluded:
1. AFFF systems require regular maintenance of the fluid.
2. Internally charged systems, like the SPA system, are less expensive than the systems with an external CO2 cartridge but require servicing at a service center at a cost of about $200 with shipping. ESS type systems can be serviced by the racer for about $60 but still require the racer to know and do it.
3. Gas (Halon and the new alternative gases) do not require this kind of maintenance service.
4. Gas systems, in the 10# size, are about the same cost as the ESS type systems in the 4L size. (The SPA system is less.)
5. Gas systems are used by NASCAR and other top racing groups.
6. All systems require careful installation and regular inspections.

Given what I have learned, we are going to replace our systems with 10# gas systems. We are researching the alternative gases and have yet to make a decision on just which one to use. We will be much more careful with how it is installed and will make it a pre-event inspection item on our checklist.

Thanks to Joe's comments, I will also be redoing the master cut off switch so that it has a second pull handle accessible to the driver and a safety worker from the drivers side (in addition to the existing one on the passenger side) so the driver can cut the power off rather than just being able to shut off individual switches.

I hope others learn from this thread and avoid what, for me, could have been a very different outcome if the fire system had been needed.

By the way, Ken (IO Port)sells ESS foam systems (in my opinion, now, the better approach to foam systems. He also sells gas systems and cares about this safety stuff and deserves our support. (He also races a 944=Spec car.) He even offered to supply a recharge kit if I wanted to purchase a ESS system, put it in and set it off while he videoed the mess with me in the middle of it, of course.

Big Dog
944-Spec
Red 16 Car


_________________
Jim "Big Dog" Foxx