Outrage at El Mirage

[RichFox]

Well maybe not outrage. But caught your eye, didn't it? During my tech inspection I was marked for having inly one nozzle on my engine fire line. I know the rule book says two. This came up once many years ago. I pointed out thet made sense for a V8 car. But a 4 cylinder engine was better off with only one nozzle. Saves more of the agent for the driver. I won that time. But was told this weekend that I need two nozzles because the rule reads that way even if it is nonsense. What's up with that?

[Captthundarr]

Does your 4 cyl only have one side or two?

[Milwaukee Midget]

I remember reading Zendog's post yesterday and wondering what was up with that.  Saturday, I was doing a checkoff of the inspection form for the Midget.  It said something about 2 nozels and directing the spray toward the exhaust.  I've got a second system on the way for the engine compartment and I was thinking perhaps directing one directly at the header and one toward the header, but skewed up toward the carb would be a decent way of going about it.

I suppose being burned by an inspector beats being burned, but there is sound logic in your argument, Rich.

[johnneilson]

Well, I guess that some folks were not happy with the previous Tech and made a stink about it.
Therefore, the Tech people can now only enforce what is written in the book (2012).

The way I see it, you were alerted to a preparation deficiency that you were aware of. Once returned to your shop you correct the issue or maybe rethink your fire system.

Rich, did you have the opportunity to run the car?

John

[RichFox]

My banger has two sides and a top and bottom. However that is not the point. The rules also state that the nozzle should be in the header/oil pan area. That is because a rod may come out allowing oil to splash on to the hot headers, causing a fire. Makes sense. But on the side without headers you don't need a nozzlw. So my inspectiors wanted two nozzles on the same side. The one with the headers. Sounds more reasonable that Capthunder's thought. But still not really the idea behind the rule. As I mentioned I went through this fight once. The two guys who looked at my car more or less agreed with me but went with th "A rule is a Rule". And showed me that the Two nozzles requirement had been highlited in their book. Not hard to do. Just annoying. I did not plan on running the car. I was only there to see about changes in the rules during the six years since I have run the roadster. I was pretty sure I would have to make some changes to the roll cage area and maybe the seat. As it turned out I have only small and easy things to do and I will be up to date.

[Captthundarr]

Rich, not trying to be a smarta$$. but I have seen a 4 banger chunk a rod out of the side without headers and the oil vapor that was released found an ignition source and lit up. I understand the frustration of what was good and made sense then don't now because a" rule is a rule". at least you only have a few small things to address.

Frank

[RichFox]

Adding a second nozzle to the header side would not seem to have helped much in the instance you saw. I think I understand the reason for the rule. I question the application. I could be wrong. Or the rule may be poorly written because of a preponderance of V8 engines and inexperience in writing standards for inline types.
 

[4-barrel Mike]

...inexperience in writing standards for inline types.
 

Yeah, LOL, 4-cylinder cars are a new thing on the dry lakes.



Mike

[Captthundarr]

Or the rule may be poorly written because of a preponderance of V8 engines and inexperience in writing standards for inline types.
 

I vote for the poorly written side of things. Hence the need to read the rule book several times just so you know what question to ask to gat a rule clarified.

Yea Mike they plenty of good rule back in the day. like round tires, some sort of seat, and brakes somewhere on the car.

[johnneilson]

...inexperience in writing standards for inline types.
 

Yeah, LOL, 4-cylinder cars are a new thing on the dry lakes.



Mike

Yeah, and the person in charge of fire systems knows absolutely nothing about inline motors.


John

[RichFox]

Writing rules is not easy. Especially rules that seem to be very obvious. Nozzles in the area of the headers and pan. Bangers being pretty much out of the mainstream when fire bottles became mandatory. They may not have been considered. I helped writing ISO for Lead mechanics at UAL in the Machine, Plating, Welding and plasma spray shops years ago. I know how hard it is to get your thought into something anybody will understand. adding another nozzle is a very small thing. I could have done it in less time than I now have tied up in this rant. But it bothers me.

[jimmy six]

Rich since I run an inline too and a roadster I have always followed the rules as written. There have been two nozzles on the left side.

When I purchased a FireFox system the instructions said to place the nozzles where they would flood the entire compartment from the top down. From personal past experience on a roadster I know that any leaking product will end up on the back of the grille shell.

I mounted my nozzles on the firewall about mid-level aiming towards the carb/exhaust/intake following the directions of the manufacturer. I did not aim them at the pan. I also found this on many other gas/fuel roadsters. I've never been questioned but sounds like I'll need to replumb.

[johnneilson]

Rich,

I get your point, you are bothered. Why?

Is it because you knew about this and tried to slide it by, as done in the past?
Or is it because the tech folks are now following the request from the SCTA (you , me and everyone else) to enforce what is written?

I can think of a worst scenario, how about going to the lake with the intention of running the car. And not being allowed to because of this. I think that if this was the case, any one and more of these tech people would have helped you secure the parts and let the car run. Hell, if I had the parts in my trailer, I would have just given them to you.

I am sure that you have experience in racing, and you should know that these volunteers who do a job that seemingly no-one wants to do, are complained about needlessly. If the rule is wrong, and it seems like you were aware of it, it could have been addressed and changed via the SCTA procedures. Be a champion and take the initiative to make it right.

Off my soapbox, respectfully, John

[RichFox]

I am bothered because as I plainly said in my first post. I went through this before. And at that time it was decided I was right. I like continuity in things. I am also surprised that JD has his nozzles on the firewall. I have always been told to place them between the headers and pan about mid engine. Either on a V8 - 6 or four. I just like things that i understand. I felt the guys who inspected my car did a very good job and we had no unpleasantness between us. I do not agree at all that I have been sliding by for years. I have been doing exactly what I was told to do before now.

[dw230]

Sounds to me like enforcement of the rules, Two come immediatly to mind, 1.A states, in brief, that the inspector must enforce rules as written, any deviation may be presented the Chief Tech Inspector(it is in Bold print for ease of reading). What did Kiwi Steve say and note in your log book?

And continuing with 1.A the last paragraph on page 8 tells us that because the vehicle passed inspection in the past it may not be compliant this time.

DW