Fuel Cell Rule Update in CCR

[swhiteh3]

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.

Of course, Matt's right. You have to have a date set in stone somehow. Just to play along with BPT for a moment though, what if I presented the cell to a NASA official, proved it was dry and had never had fuel in it, and got a note placed in the logbook with the date? Just a thought.

[swhiteh3]

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.

Maybe because I never got that certificate it never flagged up, in my mind, that this would be an issue.

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.

No argument on the first part - there are certainly some cars that have their stock tanks protected better than others (S197 for instance). But I don't agree with the second part. At 5 years and 1 day, you'd rather install a stock fuel tank? Certainly there is a line crossed somewhere, but I don't think it's anywhere near that early.

 

I'd still like to hear from a NASA official about whether the intent has always been that a cell is no longer legal after 5 years from it's date of manufacture. I also think that the 2 year re-cert policy should be in place, at a bare minimum, since it's part of the FIA spec. And finally, I think fuel bladder age should be checked anually, during the annual inspection. This would effectively (although not in so many words officially) give competitors through the end of the year - for instance a cell manufactured in March 03 could be run until Dec 08 rather than Mar 08. This would help people get "on cycle" with the race season, and not penalize people for ending up with a cell that was manufactured 6 months earlier.

[ST#97]

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.

 

Guess I should go turn off the UV lights in my garage huh?! LOL!!!!

[Jeff F]

At 5 years and 1 day, you'd rather install a stock fuel tank? Certainly there is a line crossed somewhere, but I don't think it's anywhere near that early.

5 years and a day? No problem. 8 years and never been out of the can and inspected? I'll take a stocker.

 

I agree that NASA should accept 7 years on a recert, and I'll bring it up; I suggest that the rest of you who have an interest in this do the same. NASA is listening on these issues, but we have to bring it up rather than just complain on the forums. Earlier this year I suggested that they reword the just-revised fuel cell section, getting rid of the references to bladder contruction; now it just specifies FIA FT3.

[swhiteh3]

I agree that NASA should accept 7 years on a recert, and I'll bring it up; I suggest that the rest of you who have an interest in this do the same. NASA is listening on these issues, but we have to bring it up rather than just complain on the forums. Earlier this year I suggested that they reword the just-revised fuel cell section, getting rid of the references to bladder contruction; now it just specifies FIA FT3.

My comments have been registered with the powers that be. I certainly agree that others should do the same.

 

Any support for the "end of the year" expiration I mentioned above? If so, pass that on as well.

[lsandine]

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.

For my old car 1" tubing was just welded directly to the frame rails. This was nice imo to keep the cell lower than if it was mounted to the bottom of the hatch floor. These straps were to be used to support cell as well. http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/bigpicture.asp?RecId=681 Also the plan was to put a service trap door in the bulkhead. Not as detailed as some but it would get the job done and not add a lot of weight.

 

[Mystic_Cobra]

I agree that NASA should accept 7 years on a recert, and I'll bring it up; I suggest that the rest of you who have an interest in this do the same. NASA is listening on these issues, but we have to bring it up rather than just complain on the forums. Earlier this year I suggested that they reword the just-revised fuel cell section, getting rid of the references to bladder contruction; now it just specifies FIA FT3.

My comments have been registered with the powers that be. I certainly agree that others should do the same.

 

Any support for the "end of the year" expiration I mentioned above? If so, pass that on as well.

 

Not sure if anyone is counting votes, but I agree with your logic - end of year makes sense to me.

[Tom Beverly]

Has anyone contacted Fuel Safe about sending in a group of the Mustang SA-110 (more specifically the SA-110A) fuel cells to be brought up to date?

 

I would imagine if 10+ of us sent them in at the same time it would drive the cost of labor and parts down a good bit. I'm sure there are easily more then that number currently running them that already need to be updated or will need to be updated shortly.

 

As the owner of one that is well past the 5 year limit I would be very interested in getting mine brought back up to date and not having to buy a new fuel cell.

[DHarsay]

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?

 

That's what I did... well, it's a complete 2000 R fuel cell (SA-110B) with plumbing and fuel pump, and when I installed it, it already was more than 5 years old, and hasn't seen a drop of fuel up to that point... sounds like Scott did something similar.

 

Pretty hard to enforce a rule other than how it's proposed... by the way... I have a very nice fuel cell for sale cheap if anyone's interested!!! Seriously.

 

Dave