Fuel Cell Rule Update in CCR

[swhiteh3]

According to another area of this board, starting next year we'll need to prove how old the fuel cell bladder in our car is, and it must be less than 5 years old. (New rule in the CCR) I assume this will also apply to AI/AIX/CMC.

 

Has anyone had a fuel cell bladder in a Mustang SA-110 fuel cell (any of the versions) replaced lately? How much is it, and does it require sending the cell to FuelSafe? I know that the foam can be changed (been there, done that) but that the entire bladder could only be changed by FuelSafe. I have a feeling this is a VERY expensive procedure.

 

FuelSafe is closing at lunchtime today, and is not open tomorrow, so when I called a few hours ago, I was told I should expect a call back no earlier than Monday.

 

Anyone?

[stevepoe]

When I was trying to sell my fuelsafe cell I was contacted by the guy from the grattan fire in AI about it and this 5 year deal. mine is 4 years old and was told by him If I remember correctly it was like 1,700.....To have it replaced.

[stevepoe]

scott, this is the e-mail

 

I was asking 1.350 for mine.

 

Steve,

I talked to Fuel Safe and this cell has a rubber bladder with a five year life. NASA won't allow use of the cell after the five year life. The bladder can be replaced but the cost is as much as a new cell. They said they put a date code on the bladder when they manufactuer the cell. If I knew there was say 3 years left and I could get the cell for $1,350 then it might be worth it. I can buy a new cell for $2000 and probably have 4 1/2 years of use due to the lag time on date of manufacture. So bottom line is in order to justify buying your cell it would have to have a date code of June or July of 2005 or newer. If you can give me a date of manufacture then maybe we can negotiate based on how much life is left.

Thanks,

[D Algozine]

I don't agree with the 5 year fuel cell bladder rule, but I do understand it. However, is it still legal to race with a stock gas tank? Because I definately don't understand how a stock tank is legal, but a five year old fuel cell bladder is not.

[onralz]

I don't agree with the 5 year fuel cell bladder rule, but I do understand it. However, is it still legal to race with a stock gas tank? Because I definately don't understand how a stock tank is legal, but a five year old fuel cell bladder is not.

I'll second that considering that I sent my cell in to Fuel Safe when my cell was five years old. They inspected it and said it was ok, but still recommended I replace it "just in case".

[ST#97]

However, is it still legal to race with a stock gas tank?

 

Yep. 03 Cobra fuel tank and dual pump assembly good for 600rwhp FROM dealer, new out the door for $820... I think the fuel cell guys are raping us for no reason and now they get to do it dry every 5 years!

[swhiteh3]

Anyone know of a place that will give a good group-purchase price on new stock Fox body fuel tanks? I think we're going to need quite a few....

 

I'll keep my now valueless FuelSafe cell, and install it for races with other sanctioning bodies.

[King Matt]

It's not that difficult to install a generic rectangular fuel cell in a Mustang. You have to do some cutting and fabbing, but even if you paid someone to do it, the savings in the cost of the cell itself compared to the outrageous rip-off of the bolt-in Mustang cells would net you out even or even money ahead. Plus replacement bladders would be a couple hundred bucks and you could do it yourself.

[Mystic_Cobra]

I'm still running the stock tank for this reason (rediculous price). I plan to go a custom route with a rectangular tank.

[robbodleimages]

When it gets too expensive to race, I will park it or sell it. The price of fuel for my truck to get my car to the track has me on the edge of the abyss already. This might be the coupe de grace.

[swhiteh3]

It's not that difficult to install a generic rectangular fuel cell in a Mustang. You have to do some cutting and fabbing, but even if you paid someone to do it, the savings in the cost of the cell itself compared to the outrageous rip-off of the bolt-in Mustang cells would net you out even or even money ahead. Plus replacement bladders would be a couple hundred bucks and you could do it yourself.

Matt, I have no problem with the cell install, and I'd do it myself since I have no problem doing the fab work (but I'd have someone else do the finish welding). We did our own installs on the Rehagen S197s. But I have yet to see a reasonably done fuel bulkhead in a hatchback Mustang. Camaros, Firebirds, Fox Notchs, SN95s, and S197s are all really easy because they already have a bulkhead there, and it simply needs to be "skinned" in. If anyone has a good picture of a nicely done one on a Fox Hatchback, please post it. Most I've seen are a mess.

[swhiteh3]

Is there a definitive way to determine the date of manufacture of a bladder within a FuelSafe SA110a Mustang cell? I'm not sure exactly how old my bladder is.

[edhunter]

But I have yet to see a reasonably done fuel bulkhead in a hatchback Mustang. Camaros, Firebirds, Fox Notchs, SN95s, and S197s are all really easy because they already have a bulkhead there, and it simply needs to be "skinned" in. If anyone has a good picture of a nicely done one on a Fox Hatchback, please post it. Most I've seen are a mess.

 

Here's a couple pictures on the "doghouse" I built over my cell. Simple to do, bent up some aluminum and riveted it together....

 

 

[Jeff F]

But I have yet to see a reasonably done fuel bulkhead in a hatchback Mustang.

Scott, I refuse to believe that you aren't creative enough to figure this out. I've seen it done countless times. Here's the one in my car. I did the entire install myself, including all the fab and welding, in my own garage. It's not that hard. I'll send all the pictures if you'd like. (The two studs shown were temporary and have since been replaced by winged dzus fasteners)

 

I'd also hope that you aren't dumb enough to run an out-of-date fuel cell, but apparently you are. The reason that they expire is that they are made from a material that degrades over time. Here's an example of one that had been used for 8 years. By the way, this was in a thread that you participated in:

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2008 by Guest

[swhiteh3]

Jeff-

 

Are you capable of a discussion without calling someone dumb? Just wondering.

 

Scott, I refuse to believe that you aren't creative enough to figure this out.

I didn't say I couldn't figure it out, I said I have yet to see a nicely done one. If I'm going to have to do this soon, a reasonable person takes a look at how others have done it, and takes the best ideas from everyone, so they end up with the best end result possible. I refuse to believe that you are not clever enough to figure that out.

 

The reason that they expire is that they are made from a material that degrades over time.

Yeah, that and nearly everything else on our racecars. And like most things, proper procedures can help minimize the degradation and detect an issue.

 

I'd also hope that you aren't dumb enough to run an out-of-date fuel cell, but apparently you are.

They "expire", huh? You mean like a coupon expires? You'll have to point out this "expiration" policy on FuelSafe's website to me, or on my cell.

 

And I refuse to believe that YOU aren't creative enough to figure out how to make pictures appear as something other than Red Xs.

[swhiteh3]

Thanks for the pictures Ed. That's nicely done. Very clean.

[Jeff F]

oops... double post

Edited July 7, 2008 by Guest

[Jeff F]

Sorry Scott, but when someone who likes to brag about being an NASCAR engineer uses the excuse that he has "yet to see a reasonably done fuel bulkhead in a hatchback Mustang" as the reason for not using a rectangular cell, would consider swapping back and forth between an out-of-date cell and a stock tank, and is looking for a group-purchase on a way overpriced Mustang cell just to avoid doing a rectangular cell, I attribute that to a lack of creativity, or just being dumb. Take your pick.

 

Regarding the expiration of FIA FT3 Fuel Cells, from the first page of this document:

 

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/CAEE186DBDBE002EC125744300354016/$FILE/5_FIA_Stand_FT3_1999_tank.pdf

 

2 FUEL BLADDER LIFETIME

No fuel bladders shall be used for more than 5 years after the date of manufacture, unless reinspected and

recertified by the manufacturer at the end of this 5 year period, for a supplementary period of up to 2

years after the date of recertification not exceeding 7 years after the date of manufacture.

 

This has nothing to do with FuelSafe. If you are using a cell, NASA requires it to be FIA FT-3 certified. If your bladder is more than 5 years after it's date of manufacture, or 7 with a recert, it's not FIA FT-3. This has nothing to do with the recent NASA rule changes, it's just that now NASA wants you to have the documents available to enforce it. As someone with many years of experience with race cars, I'm surprised that you didn't know this.

 

Pics work for me... if they don't for you, right-click, properties, select the address, copy, paste into a new browser window.

[Jeff F]

They "expire", huh? You mean like a coupon expires? You'll have to point out this "expiration" policy on FuelSafe's website to me, or on my cell.

Scott, please scan and post a picture of the FIA cert that came with your FuelSafe cell, and I will show it to you. I just looked and mine, and it clearly has the spec (FIA-FT3-1999), a date of manufacture (March 2005), and a "Not Valid After" date (March 2010).

[swhiteh3]

Sorry Scott, but when someone who likes to brag about being an NASCAR engineer uses the excuse that he has "yet to see a reasonably done fuel bulkhead in a hatchback Mustang" as the reason for not using a rectangular cell...

It's the reason I didn't do it originally. The FuelSafe was much easier, and about the same money (at the time). What's your issue with that? I wish I had done a generic fuel cell like you and others did, but the rule was not in place at the time (more on this below), and I didn't have any comprehension of the limited life of a cell bladder at the time.

I'm asking to see pictures because most people understand that someone else out there might have a better way of doing it than they did. It's pretty arrogant to automatically think your idea is the best out there. I've been proven wrong plenty of times. My car is filled with things I would now do different. Live and Learn.

...would consider swapping back and forth between an out-of-date cell and a stock tank...

Yup, sometimes you do what you have to do to race. I can't drop $1000-$1500 on a cell right now, whether it's a box cell or a custom one. And I have confidence in my cell right now (more on that later). Most of us were on track at one time or another, at near AI pace or quicker, with a stock fuel tank. I raced for two years in WHRRI without one. I'm pretty sure you open-tracked your car pretty seriously without one. Not the safest way to go, but I didn't have the money at the time, and I made what some might argue as being a poor trade-off between track time and safety.

...and is looking for a group-purchase on a way overpriced Mustang cell just to avoid doing a rectangular cell...

Please re-read my post. I was looking for a group purchase on stock tanks, not FuelSafe Mustang cells. If it's going to be no longer legal in 5 years, there is no reason to buy another one. I'll be planning on installing a more conventional cell, but right now I'm considering cheaper stop-gap measures.

...I attribute that to a lack of creativity, or just being dumb. Take your pick....

Still can't have a discussion without throwing out insults.... Someday maybe? And would you consider everyone who chooses to run a stock fuel tank "dumb" as well?

...Regarding the expiration of FIA FT3 Fuel Cells, from the first page of this document:....

Ahh yes, the FIA FT-3 spec. That's the very spec that is at issue, so it's hardly valid evidence. I understand what the spec says, and I understand that NASA wants to enforce to the life-limit part of this spec as part of the CCR, but I'm looking for FuelSafe's comment on this - which is independant of the FIA spec.

...This has nothing to do with FuelSafe....

It has everything to do with FuelSafe. They manufacture the cells. You see, an FIA FT-3 cell can be made from different materials, as listed in the FIA spec you posted. Some degrade far more than others. So the FIA spec assumes a lowest common denominator - which is 5 years, and they probably do that for the minimum material under poor conditions and poor maintanence - possibly even with different fuels of different corosivities. (A belt with SFI tags is allowed for 2+ years, but the same belt with FIA tags is allowed for 5 years. This is a perfect example of certification driving a perceived life limit, rather than the actual materials involved.) Proper maintanence can help extend the life of the bladder. So I hardly believe that the bladder is going to disintegrate after 5 years. In fact, I know of more than one cell which has lasted with it's original bladder for 10 years or more without an issue. Is it as safe in an impact? Maybe not - I have not done the testing to really know, but I would assume it's probably weaker than a new bladder. Is it as safe as a stock tank - I don't think anyone here knows that for sure. (An acceptable substitution might be the report from the testing house which confirmed the FuelSafe cell was up to FIA FT-3 specs in the first place. I'm not sure if this report might have some clue as to the useful life of the cell. I'm not quite sure how to get this report, although the FIA might have it on file and might make it available.)

...If you are using a cell, NASA requires it to be FIA FT-3 certified. If your bladder is more than 5 years after it's date of manufacture or 7 with a recert, it's not FIA FT-3.

We're arguing technicalities here, but the certification is a requirement of the manufacturer, not of the team. It's done when the item is manufactured, and is labeled on the part. Expecting a cell to meet the original certification process is certainly reasonable. But just because the FIA's own document dictates an expiration does not mean the cell suddenly becomes non-certified in the eyes of another organization. The FIA makes the spec, and enforces the rules for cars within an FIA series, so that document, for FIA teams, is both a specification (for the manufacturer) and a part of the rulebook (for the teams). The manufacturer has no responsibility to make sure teams don't use the cells beyond their FIA-recommended life when they certify the part. That's the difference between a certification, and a rule.

...or 7 with a recert, it's not FIA FT-3. (Portion of quote repeated for clarity)

There's that other catch. NASA's proposal makes no allowance for this re-cert. If they were going to follow the rules exactly, why not allow this re-cert process? I think that pretty much makes clear that the certification, and NASA's enforcement of the recommended timetable, are two different things. The rules (as cut & pasted from a note from Jerry) state that "Bladders older than 5 years should not be used, no exceptions." Also, the NASA CCR (at least the 2007 version) states the cell can meet FIA FT-3 or higher. Are you aware of which higher specs might qualify? Do any of them allow more than 5 years? If there is a spec that, for instance, allowed 10 years, but NASA still tried to enforce 5, would you still support that?

...This has nothing to do with the recent NASA rule changes, it's just that now NASA wants you to have the documents available to enforce it..

I'm a little confused by your wording here. Are you saying that NASA has always required the cell to be 5 years old or newer, and just never required documentation? (If so, what do you mean by "recent NASA rule changes"?) Do you know of any time that NASA has stated this 5-year limit in any form? Or are you just throwing this out there for comment? I suspect that I could walk up to a technical inspector and state that my fuel cell was older than 5 years, and they would have no issue with that until Jan 1 of next year. (My cell has it's date of manufacture clearly written on the outside. If I were to state to an inspector that my bladder was original, would I be forbidden to race during the end of this season - I don't believe so.) We're not just being asked to be able to provide documentation now, we're being told that there is now a 5 year limit and we're being told to be prepared with documentation to prove we comply. That rule did not exist previously, as far as I can tell. Please feel free to prove me wrong on this - I might be. But I have never seen a NASA official cite anyone for having an old cell, or any similar situation exist which proves NASA has ever had this rule in place. Maybe a NASA official can comment here. I suspect it has not been questioned before, and nothing short of a clarification from the top will answer the question (which pretty much proves it has not been a rule in the past).

...As someone with many years of experience with race cars, I'm surprised that you didn't know this...

Along with your comment about me being a NASCAR engineer, you seem very anxious to make fun of my experience. I don't understand it. And why would my experience in other series would make me any more likely to understand an unwritten detail of the NASA rules? I'd expect a NASA official to know those details, not me.

...Pics work for me... if they don't for you, right-click, properties, select the address, copy, paste into a new browser window.

The pics work for you because you're logged into Corner-Carvers.com (you have the "Remember Me" box selected so you have a permanant cookie) If you're not logged in, they come up as Red Xs, even in the procedure you outline. You might want to host them somewhere else so people who are not logged onto CC.com, or who are not members, can still see them. I'll check them out next time I log on to CC.com.

 

And the link you posted in your second note works, but the first one seems to be confused by the spaces. You might want to delete the first posting and leave the second one.

 

Sorry for the length. Hopefully the discussion, however overly-detailed, is interesting to others. If not we can take this offline.

[swhiteh3]

They "expire", huh? You mean like a coupon expires? You'll have to point out this "expiration" policy on FuelSafe's website to me, or on my cell.

Scott, please scan and post a picture of the FIA cert that came with your FuelSafe cell, and I will show it to you. I just looked and mine, and it clearly has the spec (FIA-FT3-1999), a date of manufacture (March 2005), and a "Not Valid After" date (March 2010).

Unfortunately, I don't have mine. I bought the cell semi-new. (Still in the box, but never installed in a car). I don't have any reason to question what your certificate says, but I think my comments in the note above make it clear my view on the difference between the certification and the rule, and the certificate does not change that. The fact that I can send in a cell to have it re-certified, and that NASA will not recognize that certification, just proves that the cert and NASA rules are two different things.

[b_tone]

Here's a twist, lets say that someone has a cell that was purchased a few years ago and still has that cell in the box, never installed and has never had fuel in it.

 

Since it's the fuel that breaks down the bladder is that 5 year expiration date still valid?

[King Matt]

If you had a set of expired belts that were new-in-the-box you know what the answer would be. Even though the issue is UV degradation that wouldn't have much effect on belts stored in a box, you would have a hard time convincing an inspector that you stored them properly. Same with a fuel cell I'm sure. The "expiration" date is what they are going to use.

[Jeff F]

We can argue semantics of rule wording and enforcement, but the rules back to 2005 have said:

The cell / bladder and components should be installed, maintained, and replaced per the manufacturer’s instructions.

So, when I bought a cell in 2005, with a certificate of conformance from the manufacturer that said it was not valid after March of 2010, I took that to mean that NASA would no longer allow my cell after that time. In fact, I have been carrying a copy of the certificate with my logbook in case it came up during an inspection. As far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed, NASA is just notfiying everyone that they need to have the paperwork to back it up.

 

I don't have objections to stock tanks in cars where they are well protected, but in a Fox or SN95 where it's hanging out behind the axle, I consider it a very risky move to not run a proper cell when wheel-to-wheel racing. But I'll take a stock tank over a questioanble cell anyday.

 

I'll move the pics and fix the links.

[b_tone]

If you had a set of expired belts that were new-in-the-box you know what the answer would be. Even though the issue is UV degradation that wouldn't have much effect on belts stored in a box, you would have a hard time convincing an inspector that you stored them properly. Same with a fuel cell I'm sure. The "expiration" date is what they are going to use.

 

I hear what you are saying, but I think you know my position on that one as well. Just playing devils advocate.