Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Roberto Arano

Fuel Cell Rules 2005 and future

Recommended Posts

Roberto Arano

We have a fuel cell mounted in the rear seat area of a 3 volume, open class car.

The cage protects the cell on every side. (If it were to be impacted, most likely, the occupants would be killed before that.)

 

We wish to make the car as safe as possible and comply with the rules.

-we want to make sure if there is a leak that it won't enter the cabin, this means a case(as FIA recommends), not a bulkhead.

-we want the highest likely hood that the bulkhead won't even be hit.

-we want the car to handle as well as possible, for safety.

 

________________________________________________

Our assessment is that the overall safest place to put the cell is in the rear seat area, not the trunk.

 

SO, we wish to make the "case-type" bulkhead for it,but not mount it in the luggage compartment. (Fuel payload is then much higher and behind the rear wheels and more likely to be hit)

 

Currently the cell is mounted as low to the floor as possible, we wish to leave it at this height and create the floor pan to go over the cell (a box-open to the bottom).

 

Effectively the cell will be mounted "under the floor" because the welded sheet metal will go over the top of the cell. The under side will be open to the ground(except for shielding/and structure) .

 

For access there will be a bolted and gasketed cover.

 

(side note: A stock EVO fuel tank is mounted under the floor and the floor pan has a gasketed lid to access the pump.)

__________________________________________________

 

It seems wise for me to look at satisfying both rally america and FIA rules in order to avoid re-designs.

For a sedan (3 volume) the FIA states that if it has a trunk the cell must go in the trunk.

However they do allow stock under floor tanks, and the very new WRC cars are allowed approved under the floor fuel cells.

They do not have an open class, so they may not allow modifying the floor to fit a cell "under the floor", however we have an OPEN class and could modify the floor to go up and over the fuel cell.

 

Since a hatchback does not have a trunk it is allowed in the cabin if a case/bulkhead is made. SO that it is as safe as possible. SO can a sedan put the cell in the same rear-seat location if that is deemed to be the safest place (all things considered)?

____________________________________________________

Also regarding filling;

 

We may use the FIA -12 style fuel and vent dry breaks, but are the "RED HEAD" style dry breaks also allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jerseybrandon

Hey Bert. The R-A forum has a bunch on this topic, hopefully Mike Hurst will chime in here as well to fill in the NASA-ers. From what I have read, you would have to apply the same changes a hatchback car with a mid-ship cell would.

 

Take a look at some of the GT/GTS type sedan road racers and keep in mind that the filler must also be contained inside the bulkhead. I have seen photos of bulkheads that have a lexan type upper section that completly isolates the cell area while still allowing you to see out the rear. It doesnt need to stop a train, just hold liquid.

 

I am in the same boat with you Bert, with my Galant. Sounds like we need to have a tin snippin party soon

 

Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberto Arano

I already have a "go signal from mike about putting it in the cabin area with the required bulkhead. Mike=Rally America.

 

What I need here is feedback from NASA.

 

I may end up putting it i the trunk, soley to avoid rules problems(in the future), although I think it is less safe ultimatley. Which is a bummer,but reality....

 

 

Also FIA (and I strongly agree) reccomend using a "case" type firewall/leak containment, rather than a full bulkhead. I don't agree that it just needs to be a fire-barrier, it needs to be leak proof EVEN AFTER IMPACT, so that fuel does not leak into the wrong side -YOUR SIDE, which would put the occupants on the WRONG SIDE OF THE FIREWALL.

 

It doesn't seem realistic that a bulkhead that is attached to (or nearly to) the outer structure of the car can remain leakproof after the deformation from impact. Does not matter if it is polycarbonate or metal.

 

The "CASE" style is best, it is well away from the outer shell, less likely to be deformed, thus less likely to leak.

 

Yes, the filler, of any type, must be contained in the case.

 

As of now,red head or fia style dry breaks are o.k,with rally america according to MIke Hurst.(today)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heymagic

If I understand everything ( not always) I would put the cell in the back, per FIA. If you get an RA log book you will be accepted at NASA events. If you build to FIA spec the car will be accepted by all, car may have more value later. This is just my unofficial NASA opinion. Good luck !!

Gene McCullough

Olymous Chief Scrutineer

NASA Scrutineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
If I understand everything ( not always) I would put the cell in the back, per FIA. If you get an RA log book you will be accepted at NASA events. If you build to FIA spec the car will be accepted by all, car may have more value later. This is just my unofficial NASA opinion. Good luck !!

Gene McCullough

Olymous Chief Scrutineer

NASA Scrutineer

 

This is correct.

 

Our rules are FIA-like rules. They have always required the bulkhead.

The uproar on the Special Stage about the change in R-A rules is

totally unncecessary. R-A is merely trying, correctly, to catch up with

the rest of the world or, alternatively, reinstate the former SCCA rule

that was incorrectly rescinded.

 

Ivan Orisek

NASA Rally Sport Scrutineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hurst
If I understand everything ( not always) I would put the cell in the back, per FIA. If you get an RA log book you will be accepted at NASA events. If you build to FIA spec the car will be accepted by all, car may have more value later. This is just my unofficial NASA opinion. Good luck !!

Gene McCullough

Olymous Chief Scrutineer

NASA Scrutineer

 

This is correct.

 

Our rules are FIA-like rules. They have always required the bulkhead.

The uproar on the Special Stage about the change in R-A rules is

totally unncecessary. R-A is merely trying, correctly, to catch up with

the rest of the world or, alternatively, reinstate the former SCCA rule

that was incorrectly rescinded.

 

Ivan Orisek

NASA Rally Sport Scrutineer

 

This is good to hear.

 

.....Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887

Bert,

 

From reading the NASA rules, I can see no way in which your proposed location and construction violates any of the rules of the 2005 NASA rule book. As for being open to the bottom, if it were me, I would put a nice shield under there, and somehow keep the cat far, far away!

 

And, Ivan, I wrote you a PM; please read it.

 

Regards,

Mark B.

NASA Scrutineer

(and R-A scrutineer too, I think....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
Bert,

 

From reading the NASA rules, I can see no way in which your proposed location and construction violates any of the rules of the 2005 NASA rule book. As for being open to the bottom, if it were me, I would put a nice shield under there, and somehow keep the cat far, far away!

 

And, Ivan, I wrote you a PM; please read it.

 

Regards,

Mark B.

NASA Scrutineer

(and R-A scrutineer too, I think....)

 

Mark,

 

This is entirely incorrect and here is why: The NASA Rally Sport General

Regulations for Rallies require the fuel tank bulkhead defined as follows:

 

NASA Rally Sport General Regulations for Rallies,

Article 3.6.11.1 Fuel Tank Bulkhead:

"A fuel resistant and fire-retardant plate or shield is required between

the passanger compartment and the compartment or area in which the fuel tank is located."

 

This is what both FIA and NASA regulations require and what R-A is

trying to implement in the interest of greater safety.

 

Having a fuel tank (fuel cell) in the passenger compartment is

impermissible both under FIA and under NASA rules (NASA Rally Sport

rules are FIA-like rules).

 

For that reason, as I told you at Sand Hills a year ago, your Toyota is

illegal under the NASA Rally Sport Regulations. Your car was legal under

the old SCCA rules after they rescinded the requirement for the fuel

tank bulkhead.

 

In order to put you car in compliance with NASA Rally Sport Regulations,

you are required to instal the Fuel Tank Bulkhead defined in Article 3.6.11.1 above.

 

I want you to know that I tremendously appreciate your unselfish help

at the 2005 International Rally New York.

 

With best regards,

 

Ivan Orisek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887
Bert,

 

From reading the NASA rules, I can see no way in which your proposed location and construction violates any of the rules of the 2005 NASA rule book. As for being open to the bottom, if it were me, I would put a nice shield under there, and somehow keep the cat far, far away!

 

And, Ivan, I wrote you a PM; please read it.

 

Regards,

Mark B.

NASA Scrutineer

(and R-A scrutineer too, I think....)

 

Mark,

 

This is entirely incorrect and here is why: The NASA Rally Sport General

Regulations for Rallies require the fuel tank bulkhead defined as follows:

 

NASA Rally Sport General Regulations for Rallies,

Article 3.6.11.1 Fuel Tank Bulkhead:

"A fuel resistant and fire-retardant plate or shield is required between

the passanger compartment and the compartment or area in which the fuel tank is located."

 

This is what both FIA and NASA regulations require and what R-A is

trying to implement in the interest of greater safety.

 

Having a fuel tank (fuel cell) in the passenger compartment is

impermissible both under FIA and under NASA rules (NASA Rally Sport

rules are FIA-like rules).

 

Ivan Orisek

 

Ivan, unfortunately, you are confusing a couple of things: you are confusing Bert's question with the cell mounting in our Toyota. That is a separate issue; we understand and have appreciated your inputs on that, and it will have a shield over it prior to any next event.

 

Bert's question is solely what I am addressing, and the section you cited above is precisely one of the sections that I re-read in order to make my statement. The NASA rules cited clearly state that: "A fuel resistant and fire-retardant plate or shield is required between

the passanger compartment and the compartment or area in which the fuel tank is located." This rule, and the other associated NASA rules, do NOT prescribe that the fell cell or tank be placed in the trunk; in fact the NASA rules do not prescibe ANY specific location for the mounting of the cell or tank. The NASA rules clearly allows the cell or tank to be located in the passenger compartment and makes a specific reference to that case (section 3.6.11.2), and what one is required to do in that situation.

 

Bert's proposal is fully inline with any reasonable reading of the NASA rules: he is going to have a fire resistant and retardant plate between the passenger compartment and the compartment or area in which the fuel cell is located. If you are trying to reject Bert's proposal, then you have to be adding interpretations or requirements that are not in the 2005 NASA rules. Let me repeat: the NASA rules do not prevent the fuel cell or tank from being located in the passenger compartment if it is shielded; this is both a literal reading of the rules and in the spirit intended in these rules as they refer to fuel tanks/cells, fuel lines, and fule pumps.

 

Are the 2006 rules going to be changed, or is this some variant on the NASA rules coming only form Ivan? Ivan, please clarify; and do not reply in regards to our Toyota; please answer only in response to Bert's proposal; that is what we are trying to answer here in order to hlep him move forward. Please do so in reference to published rules only.

 

And, you are welcome for the help at RNY; it was tiring but quite fun! (And I am sure you and Olga know what the 'tiring' part is all about!)

 

Mark B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heymagic

Mark, the NASA rule currently states :

3.6.11.2 Approved Fuel Cells

The original fuel tank may be replaced or supplemented by a fuel cell meeting current FIA

specifications, provided that the fuel cell is properly vented to the outside of the vehicle

from the compartment in which it is located.

Should the fuel cell and its filler be located in the luggage compartment, an outlet must be

provided for fuel spilled in the compartment.

Where fuel cells are installed in the passenger compartment of vehicles such as

“hatchback” variants, 8.6.11.1 above applies if the fuel cell filler is located in the

passenger compartment.

 

So ...I read "current FIA specifications" to mean compliance with Appendix J of the FIA Sporting code, which is then refered to in 252 and 253. FIA is pretty specific about mounting in the luggage compartment. Obviously we all know the "hatchback" variant has no true seperate luggage space, nor does a 5 door wagon such as Jaimie's.

 

Now I'll agree with you the rule is written a little ambiguous, but I think the intent was to match all FIA specs. I think the rule should be adjusted to read specific compliance with Appendix J rather than the term "current FIA specs".

 

So I would recommend the questioned car place the cell in the trunk to avoid future issues with scrutineering.

 

Reading between the lines always makes the book last longer

 

Gene McCullough

Olympus Chief Scrutineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek

Bert's proposal is fully inline with any reasonable reading of the NASA rules: he is going to have a fire resistant and retardant plate between the passenger compartment and the compartment or area in which the fuel cell is located. If you are trying to reject Bert's proposal, then you have to be adding interpretations or requirements that are not in the 2005 NASA rules. Let me repeat: the NASA rules do not prevent the fuel cell or tank from being located in the passenger compartment if it is shielded; this is both a literal reading of the rules and in the spirit intended in these rules as they refer to fuel tanks/cells, fuel lines, and fule pumps.

 

Are the 2006 rules going to be changed, or is this some variant on the NASA rules coming only form Ivan? Ivan, please clarify; and do not reply in regards to our Toyota; please answer only in response to Bert's proposal; that is what we are trying to answer here in order to hlep him move forward. Please do so in reference to published rules only.

 

And, you are welcome for the help at RNY; it was tiring but quite fun! (And I am sure you and Olga know what the 'tiring' part is all about!)

 

Mark B.

 

Mark,

 

Quite right, there has been no change. The fuel tank does not have to be

specifically in the luggage compartment under the current NASA rules

but it has to be separated from the passanger compartment by the

fuel tank bulkhead specified by 3.6.11.1. The INTENT here was to follow

the FIA rule.

 

At any rate, as discussed above, it would be advisable to follow the FIA

rule.

 

My personal opinion is that the latest fad of putting fuel cells under the

car in place of the stock fuel tank is not the safest idea. Even with a shield,

the fuel tank can be more easily punctured under the car and it is better

protected in the trunk.

 

This is related to another latest fad - extreme efforts of lowering the

center of gravity. These extreme efforts, as long as they are not at the

expense of safety, have merit on tarmac but they are questionable on

dirt and gravel - witness dirt circle track cars.

 

Please see the clarification of Article 3.6.11.1 (Fuel Tank Bulkhead)

of the NASA Rally Sport General Regulations for Rallies in another

answer below.

 

Best regards,

 

Ivan Orisek

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
Mark, the NASA rule currently states :

3.6.11.2 Approved Fuel Cells

The original fuel tank may be replaced or supplemented by a fuel cell meeting current FIA

specifications, provided that the fuel cell is properly vented to the outside of the vehicle

from the compartment in which it is located.

Should the fuel cell and its filler be located in the luggage compartment, an outlet must be

provided for fuel spilled in the compartment.

Where fuel cells are installed in the passenger compartment of vehicles such as

“hatchback” variants, 8.6.11.1 above applies if the fuel cell filler is located in the

passenger compartment.

 

So ...I read "current FIA specifications" to mean compliance with Appendix J of the FIA Sporting code, which is then refered to in 252 and 253. FIA is pretty specific about mounting in the luggage compartment. Obviously we all know the "hatchback" variant has no true seperate luggage space, nor does a 5 door wagon such as Jaimie's.

 

Now I'll agree with you the rule is written a little ambiguous, but I think the intent was to match all FIA specs. I think the rule should be adjusted to read specific compliance with Appendix J rather than the term "current FIA specs".

 

So I would recommend the questioned car place the cell in the trunk to avoid future issues with scrutineering.

 

Reading between the lines always makes the book last longer

 

Gene McCullough

Olympus Chief Scrutineer

 

I am in full agreement with Gene that the INTENT was to follow the FIA

regulations but rephrasing the FIA regulations created some ambiguities.

For instance "current FIA specifications" may be construed as

specifications for bladders but not for the placement of the cell, which

unfortunately clouds the INTENT.

 

There was never any intent to place the fuel cell in the passenger

compartment in case of the "three volume cars" but only in hatchbacks,

as it should be clear from the last paragraph of Article 3.6.11.2 cited

above.

 

AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION IS IN ORDER HERE:

The reference to Article 8.6.11.1 in the Article 3.6.11.2 of the NASA Rally

Sport General Regulations for Rallies (cited above), as much as there is

no Article 8.6.11.1 in the General Regulations, IS A TYPO!

 

The correct reference is to Article 3.6.11.1 Fuel Tank Bulkhead. We have

been aware of this typo but it never got quite fixed. I hope

that this puts this issue to rest.

 

I believe that discussions like this are useful but parsing the regulations

with the aim to avoid the new safety modifications outlined by latest

regulations, be it FIA or NASA, would be counterproductive.

 

Ivan Orisek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starion887
Mark, the NASA rule currently states :

3.6.11.2 Approved Fuel Cells

The original fuel tank may be replaced or supplemented by a fuel cell meeting current FIA

specifications, provided that the fuel cell is properly vented to the outside of the vehicle

from the compartment in which it is located.

Should the fuel cell and its filler be located in the luggage compartment, an outlet must be

provided for fuel spilled in the compartment.

Where fuel cells are installed in the passenger compartment of vehicles such as

“hatchback” variants, 8.6.11.1 above applies if the fuel cell filler is located in the

passenger compartment.

 

So ...I read "current FIA specifications" to mean compliance with Appendix J of the FIA Sporting code, which is then refered to in 252 and 253. FIA is pretty specific about mounting in the luggage compartment. Obviously we all know the "hatchback" variant has no true seperate luggage space, nor does a 5 door wagon such as Jaimie's.

 

Now I'll agree with you the rule is written a little ambiguous, but I think the intent was to match all FIA specs. I think the rule should be adjusted to read specific compliance with Appendix J rather than the term "current FIA specs".

 

So I would recommend the questioned car place the cell in the trunk to avoid future issues with scrutineering.

 

Reading between the lines always makes the book last longer

 

Gene McCullough

Olympus Chief Scrutineer

 

 

Gene et al,

 

Taking the phrase 'meeting current FIA specifications' to broadly indicate that fuel cell placement, shielding, etc, and all aspects of fuel cells and fuel tanks should meet the FIA rules is beyond a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the NASA rules. I assume you are a native American English speaking person, and, in that language, this phrase is clearly an adjective modifer to the noun "fuel cell" in the sentence, and nothing else.

 

IF it is the intent to be in broad compliance with the FIA regs in this area of rally car construction, then this needs to be clearly stated, and the rules changed. As it stands, the rules clearly read that some specific requirements be met, but that no broad compliance with any other rules is required. Any competitor should vigorously protest any such broad interpretation at an event, and I feel that this should and would be upheld. CHANGE THE RULES IF COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC FIA RULES IS A REQUIREMENT. Making any of these rules subject to interpretation at the local level is not acceptable, particularly in a county of several million square miles in area, and with scrutineers scattered all over, making it impossible to hold regular gatherings to coordinate such interpretations.

 

As far as Bert's proposal (if he is still reading !), I personally think that there is some merit in locating the cell inborad and not in the trunk. Both he and Eric Burmeister have built this way, or are looking at this, and both are experienced competitors and thoughtful car constructors. We have had the cases of Pinto gas tanks, Chevy pick-up trunk tanks, and a few other designs, that have proved the vulnerability of fuel containers being ruptured when located near the periphery of the vehicle. Before passing judgement, I would examine all forms of racing to see where fuel containers are located and why it works best. I agree with Bert's view that anytime the shield or enclosure (that is constructed with our typical construction techniques) is distrubed in any significant way, it will lose it ability to contain liquid; only the fuel baldder is left to likely maintain integrity since it is soft and compliant. So it makes sense to locate this where the bladder itself will see the least deformation or likelihood of puncture. This may prove to be the trunk, or not...

 

Mark B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberto Arano

I have one suggestion for rulemakers(..oh there is a joke there..)

 

The fia recommends the "CASE" style firewall over the bukhead style.

I think more emphasis should be put on this.

 

Let's say you put the cell in the trunk and make the trunk your bulkhead/firewall.

 

You hit a tree, a small seam ruptures, fuel enters the cabin. The fire starts in the trunk, then the fire is in the cabin....The firewall is now useless.

 

The CASE style is much less likely to leak, even with equal craftsmanship, since it is not attached to the outer structure. This is supposing the best case of equal craftsmanship.

 

SO even mounted in a trunk , a case style is safer.

 

side note:

It will be a shame if we have to move our cell to the trunk as it is less safe. I won't go into a technical description as to why. (Actually I just removed all that from this post).

 

Thanks to all the organizers and safety people for taking the time to debate all this and all of the other volunteer things they do for the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heymagic

Personally I wouldn't been keen on making someone move a cell already installed if it was covered safely. If we clarify the language to meet FIA specs in all aspects then I would assume any future installs be mounted to comply. Just my thoughts though.

 

Thanks to everyone for the good discussion rather than a flame fest. Negativity and productivity don't seem to work well together.

 

Gene McCullough

Olympus Chief Scrutineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
I have one suggestion for rulemakers(..oh there is a joke there..)

 

The fia recommends the "CASE" style firewall over the bukhead style.

I think more emphasis should be put on this.

 

Let's say you put the cell in the trunk and make the trunk your bulkhead/firewall.

 

You hit a tree, a small seam ruptures, fuel enters the cabin. The fire starts in the trunk, then the fire is in the cabin....The firewall is now useless.

 

The CASE style is much less likely to leak, even with equal craftsmanship, since it is not attached to the outer structure. This is supposing the best case of equal craftsmanship.

 

SO even mounted in a trunk , a case style is safer.

 

side note:

It will be a shame if we have to move our cell to the trunk as it is less safe. I won't go into a technical description as to why. (Actually I just removed all that from this post).

 

Thanks to all the organizers and safety people for taking the time to debate all this and all of the other volunteer things they do for the sport.

 

Roberto,

 

It is not correct to say that FIA recommends the liquid-proof case over the bulkhead until you consider all the applicable FIA regulations and understand the type of case the rules are talking about. (For instance, the case is not the container that comes with the fuel cell.):

 

1. Article 252, Par. 9.6 allows the fuel tank to be placed in one of the two locations: The original location of the tank or the luggage compartment.

My opinion is that the tank can be more easily punctured under the car.

 

2. Article 255, Par. 5.7.3.2 and Article 254, Par. 6.9 recommend that "the liquid-proof bulkhead be replaced by a liquid-proof case that must surround the fuel tank and its filler holes". First of all, such case is not the container that comes with the fuel cell. Secondly, such case could be pretty difficult to build, more difficult then the bulkhead and would have to have a sealed lid for access to the filler hole. If properly done, it would provide more protection than the bulkhead but more difficult access to the fuel cell filler hole. I just do not think there are many cars like that around and the main consideration would be the weight of such case.

 

3. To support the interpretation of the liquid-proof case stated in 2. above, Article 252, Par. 9.6 requires that "If the filler hole is situated inside the car, it must be separated from the cockpit by a liquid-tight protection.

 

(4. If somebody wanted to exploit the rules with the intention to avoid the bulkhead or the case entirely, the following could be done:

Place the fuel cell in the luggage compartment, relocate the fuel filler hole on the outside of the car (move it higher) to be able to fill the cell as authorized by Article 252, par. 9.6, build a filler neck authorized by Article 253, par. 14.5 and instal a non-retun valve homologated by the FIA on the tank side of the filler neck as required by 14.5. In most instances, this would be no easier than building a bulkhead. The result would be the worst solution with an unprotected tank and the filler neck in the luggage compartment open to the cockpit.)

 

Ivan Orisek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberto Arano

Ivan,

 

I was refering to the case type firewell as FIA refers to it vs a complete bulkhead,,not the unsealed box that comes with a fuel cell.

 

as far as exploting rules to avoid bulkheads entirely, that's not a good idea. And I don't think anyones rules are allowing a cell in a luggage compartment in a trunk without either a cell in a liquidproof/firewalled case or behind a bulkhead.

 

I'm not worried about a small weight penalty or difficulty in construction, I am concerned about maximum safety and large handling differences(safer handling).Greg Gilfeather drives this car too,not just me, and he needs all the help he can get!!! LOL!!!(joke)

 

Side note: although as far as sheet metal defines it, our cell will be "under the floors sheet metal. However the bottom of the cell will be above the driveshaft,approximatly 5 inches above the lowest skid plate, yet about 11" lower than if it were in the trunk.So it is not likely to get puctured from below. Think of it this way, it is under the floor in regards to the fact that it is under the floors sheet metal(a firewall), but relative to the cars original floor level it is higher than that level. The floor is raised..

 

If I find it necessary I will post pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
Ivan,

 

I was refering to the case type firewell as FIA refers to it vs a complete bulkhead,,not the unsealed box that comes with a fuel cell.

 

as far as exploting rules to avoid bulkheads entirely, that's not a good idea. And I don't think anyones rules are allowing a cell in a luggage compartment in a trunk without either a cell in a liquidproof/firewalled case or behind a bulkhead.

 

I'm not worried about a small weight penalty or difficulty in construction, I am concerned about maximum safety and large handling differences(safer handling).Greg Gilfeather drives this car too,not just me, and he needs all the help he can get!!! LOL!!!(joke)

 

Side note: although as far as sheet metal defines it, our cell will be "under the floors sheet metal. However the bottom of the cell will be above the driveshaft,approximatly 5 inches above the lowest skid plate, yet about 11" lower than if it were in the trunk.So it is not likely to get puctured from below. Think of it this way, it is under the floor in regards to the fact that it is under the floors sheet metal(a firewall), but relative to the cars original floor level it is higher than that level. The floor is raised..

 

If I find it necessary I will post pictures.

 

Roberto,

 

I have only two questions:

 

What is the arrangement for the filler hole - where is it located?

 

What kind of protection do you have for the fuel cell

- against broken and flapping drive shaft?

- against rocks on a rough gravel stage?

 

(By the way, at one point above you mentioned that a seam on a fuel cell can split and leak if you hit a tree with the fuel cell in the luggage compartment: It is the specific purpose of the fuel cell to have a flexible bladder impervious to such damage and leaks.)

 

IO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek

 

 

 

And, how is the filler hole connected with the fuel cell?

 

That whole arrangement needs to be protected by the bulkhead.

 

IO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jerseybrandon

Ivan and gang,

 

Does anyone see a problem with the filler being routed into the trunk, while the cell itself including the fill neck's attachment point to the cell is contained within the bulkhead?

 

I am in a similar situation as Mr. Arano. I have cell that is mid-ship-ish and well guarded by the cage. Encasing it and still being able to fill it in a timely and mess-free manner could be difficult.

 

Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberto Arano

Ivan, it will be like the way Burmeister drew it (filler protected by bulkead)

 

here:http://www.rally-america.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1239&page=2

 

except the filler will be FIA type dry breaks not a screw on cap.This is to mitigate the chance of fumes in the cabin during refueling. There is a spill well/collector/funnel surrounding the filler that drains outside the car via hose(all hoses run behind the case walls). All our lines run in metal protection tubes(drained at the bottom) underneath the car, not through the cabin. The fuel pump is in the cell. The filter is outside the car on top of a subframe.The system is the same as WRC-staubli/ATL, the 2nd dry break serves as a vent hose conection this drains into a refueling catch tank(not part of he car), this is in case the crew overfills it. All dry-breaks are flush- faced to minimize wetting.

 

The filler will be under an access lid, bolted with captive nuts, it will have a gasket. The lid and it's mating flange will be thicker than the metal that makes up the box.

 

 

It will have 3/16 6o61-t6 floor/ skid.Skid is a misleading term as it is about 5" above the actual floor (lowest). Basically if you imagine the standard fuel tanks that are underneath the rear seats in a car,the BOTTOM of our cell is at the height of the TOP of a standard tank (actually a bit higher.) i may end up keeping it at the height it is now, which is on top of the rear seat platform/floor. If possible I will have the whole cell mount from underneath (with proper supprting structure,or I may mount it from inside the car,this will require bolted&sealed flanges.(in addition to the filler acess lid)

 

It helps to at least imagine the worst case, a fuel bladder leak, in order to guide the design of the bulkhead.

 

impervious who?....never met the guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
Ivan, it will be like the way Burmeister drew it (filler protected by bulkead)

 

here:http://www.rally-america.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1239&page=2

 

..........

 

Roberto,

 

I could not get the above on the screen but I went through the thread.

There has been obviously some development in the author's thinking as a result of these discussions.

 

The first photo, the white cell with the filler neck and its attachment to the fuel cell unprotected in the cockpit is not acceptable. If the neck breaks off, the fuel would enter the cockpit. I am in agreement with Mike Hurst on this.

 

The second photo, the red cell, would be acceptable under the current NASA Rally Sport rules as long as the filler hole is under that sealed cap on the top (it is not clear). However, I would not encourage this arrangement because the fuel cell in its case is sitting right there inside the cockpit in the place of the rear seat. Under FIA rules, this is not acceptable. The FIA rules require that the fuel cell is either in the place of the original fuel tank or in the trunk. The logic of this is simple - to keep the fuel cell as far as possible from the crew.

 

The drawing is the best case with the fuel cell recessed into (but unfortunately not under) the floor under the rear seat and the filler neck and the filler hole are encased and separated from the cockpit by the bulkhead. This would also be acceptable under the current NASA Rally Sport rules. This arrangement is not acceptable under the FIA rules and I would not encourage the proliferation of this type of arrangement for the same reason as stated above.

 

As they say, a drawing or a picture is worth a thousand words. I suggest that in similar discussions in the future we rely on the design drawings.

 

IO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Orisek
Ivan and gang,

 

Does anyone see a problem with the filler being routed into the trunk, while the cell itself including the fill neck's attachment point to the cell is contained within the bulkhead?

 

I am in a similar situation as Mr. Arano. I have cell that is mid-ship-ish and well guarded by the cage. Encasing it and still being able to fill it in a timely and mess-free manner could be difficult.

 

Brandon

 

Brandon,

 

See the answer to Roberto below at 7:40 pm.

 

Also, do you have a picture?

 

IO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberto Arano

Brandon ,here is my UNOFFICIAL interpretation;

 

The filler cap, also has to be contained within the bulkhead (with a cover). So either your entire filler tube starting at the fuel cell bulkhead/case has to be covered by a tube hat is an extension of the bulkhead,even as it passes into the luggage compartment and beyond, then there must be a lid on that so that the bulkhead is sealed as an enclosed volume. Alternatively the encasement tube could stop where it is joined to the luggage compartment, but then the entire luggage compartment must be sealed (so it becomes a sealed volume )

 

Also the ash tray and cigarrette lighter must be located on the outside of said sealed volume.(also unofficial interpretation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jerseybrandon

I guess a short fill neck inside a raised section of the box with a sealed flapper door and a twist thumb lock is the way to do it.

 

Go figure, I was planning on storing a propane torch, extra lighter flints and some gun powder in the trunk... who knew?!

 

Brandon

 

PS, I have connection to the truck/bus/heavy equip industry, so odd-ball parts like little doors, hinges, latches etc can he had. Feel free to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...