Dick,
Dick,
One reason I have the driver protection at the same time the underhood
is discharged is that you only have to do one action. On my system three
nozzles are in the engine compartment (only two are required, one at
each side of the engine focused on the headers. I also have one nozzle
in the middle of the front of the engine, injector area.) and one in the
driver's. Most of the retardent is going to attack the fire, just a
little assurance that the driver is being protected as well. It is my
feeling that if the fire is attacked at its origin, the needed driver
protection is minimized. In our car , we are required to carry 15 lbs of
fire protection. (we have three five lb. bottles)
Tom, Redding CA =- #216 D/CC
Dick J wrote:
> When I did my camaro, I thought having one system for the engine and one for
>the driver
was a good idea. I'd seen cars catch on fire from a carb backfire, and
had even experienced
a little flare up myself. I figured no need to discharge everything
and fill the cockpit
just for an engine fire. I was even considering three systems for the
Studebaker: One for
the driver, one for the engine with header nozzles as required in the
rules, then a third
smaller system aimed at the carburetors just in case - - - catch the
little one while it's
still little. Now I'm wondering. I'd like to hear a lot of feedback on
this as this is
such a very important part of the car. Let's have comments from a bunch
of you more
experienced racers.
> Dick J in East Texas
|