Fire Extinguisher

[cywxvii]

Does anyone have any idea why hand held fire extinguishers are not permitted to be mounted on or in the car?

Cheers

[cywxvii]

Does anyone have any idea why hand held fire extinguishers are not permitted to be mounted on or in the car?

Cheers

[Dash]

1. Who is going to use it?
2. Pressurized canister inside a fire = explosion.

[Michael Royce]

Because we saw some very unsafe (read dangerous) mountings when teams were required to mount an extinguisher on board, and the standard instruction to any racing driver whose car is on fire is to get out and not worry about the fire. There should always be other people around the track with fire extinguishers, whether it be an actual competition or when teams are testing. At the US competitions, there will be 10 lb and 20 lb extinguishers out on the course at every corner station.

On-board (plumbed) fire systems are encouraged, but I have yet to see any FSAE teams fit one.

[AxelRipper]

Plumbed fire systems add weight. Weight is bad (right?)

And it isn't hard to put a formula car fire out. Not like theres a whole lot on these things that can go up. If you get there in the 5-10 seconds it takes your driver to register that the car is on fire and get out, then you can probably save the car. Its also probably easier to have someone else run across your parking lot to put the fire out in testing than it would be to expect your driver to think about grabbing the extinguisher off the car before he leaves and put the fire out.

[cywxvii]

Alright, thanks guys!

[nick roberts]

Sometimes vehicle fires aren't easy to get to and this is where a plumbed fire system can be a very good idea. Since it is plumbed you can put fire suppression chemicals exactly where they are most likely to be needed; in the fuel tank compartment and around the headers. We pushed the limits of packaging with our '11 car when we installed a 600RR in a monocoque designed for an Aprilia. Needless to say it was a tight fit and i doubt we could have done much against a significant engine fire with external extinguishers, access was that limited.

I am a strong proponent of on board fire suppression, but until it is required by SAE I doubt anyone will take the weight penalty. Seems like an odd decision to require impact attenuators and chassis templates, but not on board fire suppression. I've seen many more cars catch fire at events then impacts or trapped drivers. Formula Electric is even more at risk with the potential for runaway thermal events in the battery pack.

-nick
University of Kansas

[Zac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nick roberts:
Sometimes vehicle fires aren't easy to get to and this is where a plumbed fire system can be a very good idea. Since it is plumbed you can put fire suppression chemicals exactly where they are most likely to be needed; in the fuel tank compartment and around the headers. We pushed the limits of packaging with our '11 car when we installed a 600RR in a monocoque designed for an Aprilia. Needless to say it was a tight fit and i doubt we could have done much against a significant engine fire with external extinguishers, access was that limited.

I am a strong proponent of on board fire suppression, but until it is required by SAE I doubt anyone will take the weight penalty. Seems like an odd decision to require impact attenuators and chassis templates, but not on board fire suppression. I've seen many more cars catch fire at events then impacts or trapped drivers. Formula Electric is even more at risk with the potential for runaway thermal events in the battery pack.

-nick
University of Kansas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly on-board fire suppression is pretty far down the list of safety items I would like to see addressed by teams, particularly when running the car outside of competition. I have a hard time believing that such systems would be properly implemented or maintained when I see things like students logging practice laps in t-shirts, or driving cars into backhoes to test the impact attenuator, or driving cars without a functioning kill switch.

[nick roberts]

Dont require an impact attenuator and people wont need to test them ; ).

Seriously though, the IA is almost useless. With these cars there is almost no chance your going to hit something head on. If were honestly worried about that then make a rule requiring the drivers feet to be behind the front axle like every other racing series.

As for post competition safety concerns there is almost no way to enforce anything. Its amazing that we haven't seen more serious incidents. At least on board fire suppression would be something a little more difficult to forget then external extinguishers or fire suits and harder to remove then an IA or other safety equipment.

KU of course attempts to drive as safely as possible and have been stepping up the safety of our testing/driving over the past year.

-nick
University of Kansas

[AxelRipper]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zac:
Honestly on-board fire suppression is pretty far down the list of safety items I would like to see addressed by teams, particularly when running the car outside of competition. I have a hard time believing that such systems would be properly implemented or maintained when I see things like students logging practice laps in t-shirts, or driving cars into backhoes to test the impact attenuator, or driving cars without a functioning kill switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my thoughts. I don't understand why anyone would strap themselves into one of these cars without full safety gear on. We all know that not everything on these cars is perfect, and there's a very good chance that at any moment something could go wrong. During driver training a few years ago the gasket on the oil filter of one of our old cars decided it wanted to blow out. Needless to say our driver was VERY glad that he had his firesuit on and that we had a fire extinguisher there. He hadn't done anything wrong and this car had been driven around for a long time prior to this, things just happen, especially when you have a bunch of college kids putting these things together at the last moment.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't understand why anyone would strap themselves into one of these cars without full safety gear on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen.

[Michael Royce]

Nick,
Ask the guys down in Oz about the use of Impact Attenuator, particularly Newcastle, Wollongong, and there has been a third, but I cannot remember which school off the top of my head, who have been very thankful of the IA!

Yes, on-board fire system are not cheap, $400-500 when I last checked, and the Rules Committee at that time, decided that the cost/safety benefit trade-off was not there. IA's cost very little. Wearing full safety gear even less!!

[theTTshark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Michael Royce:
Nick,
Ask the guys down in Oz about the use of Impact Attenuator, particularly Newcastle, Wollongong, and there has been a third, but I cannot remember which school off the top of my head, who have been very thankful of the IA!

Yes, on-board fire system are not cheap, $400-500 when I last checked, and the Rules Committee at that time, decided that the cost/safety benefit trade-off was not there. IA's cost very little. Wearing full safety gear even less!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Royce, my argument to this would be if we have had people use their impact attenuator why aren't we requiring drivers to use HANS devices? And I have to agree with Nick that if we are concerned about impacts why are we running vehicles with front axles where the driver's legs are? I'm not necessarily saying we should do these things, but it does introduce some weird inconsistencies that I've always wondered about.

[AxelRipper]

I don't fully understand why you're making a point about the driver's legs being in front of the front axle. On our cars, there's not really anything at the axle line to attenuate any force, and if your suspension can hold your chassis in place in a crash, well its probably built a bit too stiff.

HANS devices would be a good idea, but its all that some teams can do to afford the 3 layer suit (which is overkill IMO, see post above) much less require them to get 2 $600 HANS device and helmets with proper mounts on them.

[RobbyObby]

I never understand why people argue about the cost of using proper safety equipment. If teams are willing to spend thousands of dollars on expensive data acquisition systems or 6-way adjustable F3-tuned dampers, then they can probably spend the extra $600 necessary for a driver suit and gear. Now I'm not saying this is every team, but you get my point. The safety equipment is one area I don't make compromises. Especially because we, like a lot of teams I'm sure, have had incidents in the past where our drivers were definitely thankful of having the right equipment.

[Drew Price]

Well said.

Racing is expensive, you have to pay to play. Cheaping out on the important things is dangerous.

[Rex Chan]

The other team that has used it's IA in the Australian FSAE comp would be us (Melbourne), in 2010. We were in the practice area before 2nd enduro for practice/warming up/etc, when the driver lost track of where he was and ended up straight into the metal barrier. The IA was partially crushed (into the shape of the nosecone) and the nose was broken. Luckily, we had a spare IA/nose back at uni (but not at comp...), so got that in time to run out of order.

Having said that, the testing of IA's does not represent what will actually happen to the IA if it is used. We test (at Autoliv, now APV, who are the only independant car crash in Vic) with only the IA (no nose in front to affect the energy absorbtion). Also, most FSAE cars will crash at an angle (this happened to us in testing, where we went into a tyre barrier, backwards). I suppose the IA rule is the most efficient way to get some kind of crash structure, but is not very realistic. I suppose the foam used in the standard IA will do something in an oblique crash (where honeycomb, used by lots of teams, may shear).

[Michael Royce]

Drew,
How much safety equipment to mandate is always a trade-off and can be somewhat subjective. Where do you draw the line? People do have different views. When I started back at Chrysler, the chief of our safety systems always wore a crash helmet when driving a car on the streets! If I went back to circuit racing, I would continue with my triple layer suit WITH Nomex underwear, even though SCCA does not require the underwear with the triple layer. And I would buy and wear a HANS device, even if it were not mandated. However, I would not dream of wearing a HANS myself while soloing, and will not ask my grandchildren to do so when they solo. (You will get to understand that grandparents are very, very protective of their grandchildren, and my oldest grand-daughter has already started to solo!)

$6-800 for a HANS, which really should be fitted to each driver, versus a strong structure at the front of the chassis and few $ and some design and test work for the team - easy choice in my mind. Yes, the IA's are far from perfect, but head-on is where the high g's could occur. Angled impacts are lower g's.

I am sure the Rules Committee will continue to struggle to maintain the balance between education for you students, safety and maintaining the cost at a reasonable level, both for the teams and the event organizers. (The latter is always contentious as far as the teams are concerned, but costs are continuing to rise and someone has to cover them.)

[09Sioux]

The University of North Dakota car in 09 had an onboard fire supression system on board. We had it donated by Purple Patch Motorsports and it was a 1.5L foam spray system.

The system seemed to help us in both design and buisness case, but future teams decided to drop the system to get rid of the 8 lbs.

All I know is that I felt a lot more comfortable driving the car around parking lots with the big red "FIRE" pull on the dash.

http://www.purplepatchmotorsports.com/UNDFSAE.html

[Michael Royce]

09,
Glad to hear someone has used an on-board, and that it helped in the static p[arts of the competition. But saddened that your following teams decided not to use it even though they had it on hand.

[Buckingham]

Why not require each team to carry an 8 lb steel ballast block (size/shape determined by rules, specify mounting bolt pattern) OR onboard fire suppression?

That way, weight is not a valid reason not to run one. The high budget schools that can afford the system and implement it properly would then have no reason not to.

I always thought the impact attenuator should have a minimum mass as well. If a team had a lighter IA they would just have to have a thicker backing plate between the IA and the frame.

Performance (weight) vs Safety should never be a decision left up to the competitors. A "either Ballast or Fire System" rule would help teach this belief to these students.

[AxelRipper]

Yes, but do we really have a NEED for onboard fire suppression? We have to be able to get out of our cars in under 5 seconds, which is blisteringly fast compared to some other cars. I was just watching a video about Michigan's solar car and they were saying they have to get out in 20 seconds, and if there's a fire on their car, its electric.

I could see maybe requiring something on the electric cars, with how unstable modern batteries seem to be and how hot they burn when they do light off, but in the fires that have happened in the past few years have any of the drivers been injured?

As far as the IAT goes, if a team designs one and its heavier than the standardized one, why wouldn't they just switch to the standardized? If a team wants to go out of their way to design one that is smaller and lighter than that, then they should be able to. Saying that you need to ballast to make up for your loss in weight in that area is like saying that you need to ballast because you're running a single or have a smaller restrictor because you have wings.

[Buckingham]

Regarding the IA, I'm simply proposing that if a team were able to innovate a way to achieve a better Energy/Weight ratio for their IA, why not have them build an IA that weighs the same but absorbs more energy. They could then be rewarded in the design tent for their above average IA test results, while also providing their driver with a safer vehicle.

In the current system, if a team finds a better Energy/Weight ratio, they are more likely to design the lowest weight device that still meets the minimum required safety standard.

[kcapitano]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the minimum required safety standard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that the point of the rule book? Set a standard that is safe enough and leave the rest to the teams? I understand your point about a minimum mass rule making cars with more elaborate IAs to be safer, but then again, we could always be a little safer. The rules could ask for a more energy absorbing IA, they could require HANS devices, fire extinguishers, 10mm intake restrictors or 100cc engines; or we could not have a competition at all because it's too risky.

Eventually, everyone needs to accept the fact that everything we do involves some amount of risk. How much risk is allowable and what safety measures are required, IMO, should be agreed on by the participants and enforced by the authorities.

So if you don't think the minimum safety requirement is good enough then maybe we should be asking:

how many frontal impacts, where the IA was used, are there in FSAE and what injuries occurred?

how many FSAE cars have caught fire and to what extent was the driver injured in each incident?

If the answers to these questions show the cars/competition to be unsafe then change the rules, if not, don't.