Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

hose

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by VinnieB
    The two guys are going to move the 1.75" faster and easier than 2 with the 2". How we operate lines (my old vollies/and current career) is different than most. We don't pencil, we don't open up then shut down, then advance. Once the line is open, it stays open, we work the line in a RAPID clockwise pattern and sweep the floor, and all the while aggressivly advancing in using a crouch (which I prefer), so to take the extra beating for a little more water that I don't need, to me seems like a waste. Especially if I have to do it 2 or 3 times in a 24 hour period. Unless the 2" is in some way lighter and more maneuverable. Like I said, if it works for you great, keep it up. I gave my experiance and reasons. A vollie house that I was in had it for 4 years, and reverted back to the 1.75" line. 2" was just not neccesary...we knew there was a second line coming...and if need be a few more. Noone is ever going to convince me otherwise. KISS...little fire, little water, Big fire, big water.

    Good Luck to ya'
    Excellent reasoning and description! We usually make the fire area, darken it substantially (or extinguish if possible), shut down and move on. It just seemed easier for us to fight that way. Agreed, if it works for either of us, Im fine with it.

    Comment


    • #17
      This is really cool, i wish I found this forum earlier. I've been in the FD for 15yrs now and there is tons of info here.

      Simple question: what is the 2" and 1-3/4 maxium rated for? Is it pressure or is there gpm? take all the hydraulics, friction loss out, is there a maxium rating of GPM in each of these hoses you don't want to exceed. For some reason they are stuck on that question, we just just standard hose on our trucks

      Comment


      • #18
        Mook, before anyone can tell you what they are "rated" for, you'd have to tell us which brand and model. Take a look at Snap-Tite website, www.snap-tite.com Just on their own site, you will see many varying friction losses and flows based on the individual hose.

        There is no simple 1 3/4" flows X gpms and 2 1/2" flows X gpms. Unfortunately.
        "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

        Comment


        • #19
          mook13...

          I am puzzled by your question of maximum flow. Why is that an issue? I have clearly shown that WE can flow 300 gpm out of the 2 inch with our 300 foot preconnect and still be under 200 psi EP. What this tell me is we could flow more water OR that same 300 gpm at least another 100 feet if we wanted to have a 400 foot preconnect.

          I guess I would ask those people with the max flow question what nozzle they want to use and what flow they expect. No matter how you slice it the 2 inch will ALWAYS flow more than the 1 3/4 inch line OR flow the same amount a heck of a lot farther than the 1 3/4 inch hose.

          Again, borrow hose from a vendor, if they are seriously interested in your business they will gladly lend it to you, put the nozzle on you intend to use and flow the lines. Obviously if you are only going to put a nozzle capable of flowing only 125 to 200 gpm on the line 1 3/4 will work just fine for 200 foot preconnects and depending on the hose maybe even a 300 foot preconnect.

          A little know fact about most of the high flow 1 3/4 inch lines is that they are in fact actually closer to 2 inch than 1 3/4 inch. Some measuring 1 7/8 or greater ID. So who is fooling who with that?

          Good luck,

          FyredUp
          Crazy, but that's how it goes
          Millions of people living as foes
          Maybe it's not too late
          To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

          Comment


          • #20
            We did similar testing between our 1 3/4" and 2" hose as most of the rest of you. We typically have a 3 person crew. In light of that, we went with the least amount of work to put the most amount of water on the fire.

            We have an 1 3/4" with a 15/16 tip on it that we can get about 175 GPM @ 130 psi. (This is usually the first line we pull off the truck for "routine" fires)This line has a great reach, penetration and knockdown ability. It will put out most fires. We also have a 2" hose with an 1 1/8" tip on our engine. We are pushing 250 to 260 GPM with almost the same amount of back pressure as the 1 3/4". The only difference was the weight of the water in the hose. It was very useable for a two person attack team. We use this line when there is a large volume of fire showing on arrival. The theory behind this line is a quick hit with 2 people on the line flowing 250 GPM plus saves a lot of extra work later. (Again using the "as little work" possible theory of sometimes a little hard work to begin with saves a lot of moderate work later, because this line is more work than an 1 3/4")

            Like someone mentioned before, if you need any higher flows than that, you should be looking at some form of portable monitor or a lot more manpower on your truck in order to move up to 2 1/2" handlines. If you typically have a 5 or 6 person engine company with required fire flows in the 250 to 300 GPM range, then by all means, go to the 2 1/2" hose, it will give you more options fighting fire. But if you are like us, there is too much of a weight and useability difference between 2" & 2 1/2" to justify having anything bigger than the 2" hose.

            Hartin had it right, in all the tests that we did, there was enough of a difference to justify the 2" hose vs. 1 3/4", but it really comes down to your department's mindset, manpower, and how you train to use it. You can make just about any size hose work for you! Just know how to use it to get the desired effect.

            I hope this makes sense to you,
            Mark

            Comment


            • #21
              What?

              Do a preplan of your area. If you need a more water go with a big line. But the best thing to do is to get about 150ft of that 2inch line. Play with it. Take it in a building and around the walls. Take it up a flight of stairs. Or hell do a live burn. Alwas test it yourself befor you spend the money. If it works good for you go with it. My dept. has large fire load areas in are city, but we make due with 1 3/4 lines. If you need more water pull a 2 1/2. We keep perconnect 2 1/2 inch lines on all Companies. But we know how good are training is and that we can take care of some big fires with a 1 3/4 inch line. Its really not about the hose, its more about the guy at the nozzle.

              Comment


              • #22
                Our volunteer dept. put 2" on one of our crosslays on our first out engine to see if it was something we wanted to switch to, after about 18 months we love it and are making plans to purchase more hose to switch atleast one crosslays on each engine and have a few hundred on the rack for spare, but just because it works good for us doesn't mean it will be right for you. You may want to try one crosslay for a while to see if you like it, then you waste all that money if you don't.

                Comment


                • #23
                  So

                  If you got a [email protected] at the end of the line, that cant find the seat of the fire. Because the only fire he has seen is whats on the BBQ grill, You might aswell bring a 2 1/2 in the house. Show that fire some real GPM's and do as much water damage as you can. Your going to have a lot of open lots in your city..... Ya thats what we want to do, more damage...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I have not tried 2" line, so I cannot discuss its advantages or disadvantages, but I am a huge advocate for getting the most out of your handline, no matter what size. We can flow 250gpm @ 50psi NP and 220psi EP with an 1.75" 200ft line. When I hear most people talk about going to 2" line they explain they are going to get over 200gpm. Flow that with your 1.75"! Like FyredUp says, they are using 300gpm. That would probably place our EP too high and we wouldnt be able to get that out of a 1.75". We would need to pull the 2.5" then, but take advantage of what you have.

                    The discussion started by asking what was the maximum flow. The maximum flow should be what your personnel can handle in the conditions they use the line. If the guys are using the line crouched most of the time, find out what they can flow and still manage the nozzle: 185, 200, 250 gpm? No matter what size line or how you attack the fire, flow the most gpm you can.

                    This crap about water damage is a training issue. When you darken the fire down (the more gpms flowing, the quicker the knockdown) shut off the line and reevaluate! I would rather flow 250gpm for 10 seconds (40 gallons)than flow 150gpm for 45 seconds (90 gallons). On top of that, I'd rather my guys have the larger flow available if something goes wrong than not have it. I dont give a shart about water damage if it starts hitting the fan.

                    The other issue brought up was whether the 2" will make it easier for the nozzleman to handle. This is an issue of nozzle reaction. Nozzle reaction is determined by flow and psi, not by hose size. A 250gpm @ 50psi nozzle on a 2" line will react the same as the same nozzle on a 1.75" line.
                    Last edited by Spencer534; 09-30-2006, 08:36 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      FDNY was the first ones to come up with 1 3/4..then they were using 2 1/2 for everything and others were using either 1 1/2 or 2 1/2..they found 1 3/4 to have a good flow while still being very manageable..they dont have manpower issues so im assuming they just as easily could've used 2'' which im sure when they went with 1 3/4 they would've looked at teh idea of 2''...in my opinion if your running 2 1/2 and 1 3/4 you've got a good base to work from..2'' and 2 1/2'' are becoming too close to eachother

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Have you tried Snap-tites Ponn Con Quest series hose. We use it exclusively on all our trucks, although they market it as 1 3/4" it is actually 1 7/8". We pump our 1 3/4" 150' preconnects at 100 PSI and get 190 gpm with a 7/8" SB tip. We flow 180 gpm through a 150 @ 50 Chief nozzle. We tested the 2" inch hoze and found it kinked easily with the high gpm/ low pressure nozzles. For us, the extra cost wasn't worth the extra money with our current setup. Good Luck! Remember gpm's AND proper water application puts the red stuff out.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          [QUOTE=Steeda83]FDNY was the first ones to come up with 1 3/4..then they were using 2 1/2 for everything and others were using either 1 1/2 or 2 1/2..they found 1 3/4 to have a good flow while still being very manageable..they dont have manpower issues so im assuming they just as easily could've used 2'' which im sure when they went with 1 3/4 they would've looked at teh idea of 2''...in my opinion if your running 2 1/2 and 1 3/4 you've got a good base to work from..2'' and 2 1/2'' are becoming too close to eachother[/QUOT

                          This is from Dave Fornell's Fire Stream Management book. The Rand Corporation was hired in the 1960's to help evaluate and plan the FDNY's fire defenses. They discovered that flow effeciency was increased by almost 95% by going from 1 1/2 inch lines to 1 3/4 inch lines with 1 1/2 in couplings. Rand also advocated the use of Rapid water and in fact the FDNY did experiment with Rapid water but it was phased out due to expense and problems with the system.

                          As for 2 inch hose, my FD runs it as a stand alone size hose. We flow 160 to 300 with it. We don't have any 1 3/4 inch hose or 2 1/2 inch hose on our rigs.

                          I can;t help but wonder if you have ever flowed a piece of 2 inch hose? If not how can you realistically judge it?

                          FyredUp
                          Crazy, but that's how it goes
                          Millions of people living as foes
                          Maybe it's not too late
                          To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ecfr1978
                            Have you tried Snap-tites Ponn Con Quest series hose. We use it exclusively on all our trucks, although they market it as 1 3/4" it is actually 1 7/8". We pump our 1 3/4" 150' preconnects at 100 PSI and get 190 gpm with a 7/8" SB tip. We flow 180 gpm through a 150 @ 50 Chief nozzle. We tested the 2" inch hoze and found it kinked easily with the high gpm/ low pressure nozzles. For us, the extra cost wasn't worth the extra money with our current setup. Good Luck! Remember gpm's AND proper water application puts the red stuff out.
                            Why would you overpump the 7/8 tip to flow 190? A 15/16 tip flows 182 at 50 psi and would be aheck of a lot easier to handle and give a better looking stream.

                            Why would you overpump the low pressure nozzle to flow 180 gpm? Why not just get a 175 at 50 psi combo nozzle or a 175 at 75 combo nozzle? Again overpumping a combo nozzle can give more gpm's but also adds to nozzle reaction as nozzle pressure goes up.

                            By your own admission you are not using true 1 3/4 inch hose. Some manufacturers have gone even farther than 1 7/8 to darn near 2 inch and are marketing it as low friction loss 1 3/4 inch hose. Kind of like calling 3 inch hose low friction loss 2 1/2. A pretty neat marketing ploy really.

                            My volly FD has used 2 inch exclusivley for roughly a decade and we have not experienced problems with advancing it, kinking, or handling it flowing. I am not saying it is the answer for everyone but it owrks here and was actually chosen by the firefighters themselves over 1 3/4 inch hose.

                            FyredUp
                            Crazy, but that's how it goes
                            Millions of people living as foes
                            Maybe it's not too late
                            To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I studied and read a lot about "technical firefighting"... using enough water to extinguish the fire, while causing the least amount of collateral damage... sadly, surround-and-drown seems to be a lot more easily taught (and learned) today. Maybe I was just taught in the old-school way, but I was always under the impression that the priorities were 1. Be safe, 2. Look out for the safety of others, 3. Put the fire out, 4. Keep the collateral damages to a minimum. It absolutely KILLS me to see some guys today causing more damage than necessary. Don't smash out a window on the opposite side of the house, in a room where the fire ISN'T, just to ventilate... TRY TO OPEN THE DAMNED THING first! The homeowner is going to have to pay enough to recover from the fire, without replacing perfectly good windows besides. Same thing with water usage... like it was said... don't pour on the water until the furnishings are floating out the front door... all it does is cause MORE damage than the freakin' fire did. Some guys are more than happy to dump water on a first-floor, single-room fire, until the basement of the house is swamped 4' deep. Sure, it got the fire out, but while you're there, you might as well pump out the basement, too, so the homeowner can get in with his insurance adjuster to figure out how much the furnace and water heater is going to cost to replace on top of the fire damage.

                              I read a rather lengthy study a while back about fighting a single-room fire in a rural area with a narrow-diameter booster line off of a truck with a 200-gallon tank on it. The basis was that the applied water hits the fire and knocks out the heart of it, and the STEAM and VAPOR cool the air and surrounding area down below the combustion point. As vapor and steam, water expands exponentially... if it's placed correctly, technically a fire ina situation like this could be knocked down and extinguished with little more than two backpack pump tanks. Granted, I don't think I'd want to try it, but if it's studied and documented that it can be done, why would anyone think that it takes 2500 gallons of water pushed through a 2-1/2" line to put out a burning sofa in the den?

                              We're in an area that does not have pressurized hydrants, so any water that is used must be carried or pumped to the scene. If you're the first truck on scene with 3 rooms involved, carrying 1000 gallons of water in the tank, it makes very little sense to blow off 600 gallons or more of it knocking down one room, only to have the place go up around you when you run out of water and can't mop-up the scene to prevent rekindle. We were taught from day 1 that the placement of the stream, as well as what type of stream puts out the fire with plenty of water left to spare as a contingency. The only place we lay large-diameter, or even 2-1/2" is to relay water from another truck or from a pumper at an open source (like a lake or pond), or going into a manifold feeding several 1-1/2" attack lines. Dragging the 'big stuff' into a residential structure fire is just not done.

                              We have a pretty simple principle... if there's property that is salvageable, attack the fire directly, keeping damage to as much of a minimum as possible. The only time we pour it on is if it's fully involved and gone, there's no reason to risk anyone going in... get a water source going, hit it from the outside, and drown it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by FyredUp
                                This is from Dave Fornell's Fire Stream Management book. The Rand Corporation was hired in the 1960's to help evaluate and plan the FDNY's fire defenses. They discovered that flow effeciency was increased by almost 95% by going from 1 1/2 inch lines to 1 3/4 inch lines with 1 1/2 in couplings. Rand also advocated the use of Rapid water and in fact the FDNY did experiment with Rapid water but it was phased out due to expense and problems with the system.


                                FyredUp
                                Holy geez...old school. The Rapid water system served ONE purpose...to reduce manpower during the po' days of the city. They said 1.75" would flow as much as a 2.5" b/c of a substance that was injected into the hulls of US Navy ships to help reduces the friction of the water flowing across the bow.....thing was that insane pressure was required on the lines to maintain the gpm.

                                Yes, we use 1.75" and 2.5".....with 3 to 4 men on the line.......these days we avg 27,000 structural fires a year.....and what we do works for us.....big fire, big water, little fire, little water.

                                SPENCER You may want to re-evaluate you comment about water damage and training....."water damage" combined with shoddy construction was a MAJOR factor in what recently killed 2 of my brothers.
                                IACOJ Member

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X