Catch Tank Rule Problems - VW Porsche and others please comment

[Bob Roth]

In reading the proposed 9.3.15, I think its going to cause a lot of problems. Before I send this note to the CRB, can you Porsche and VW guys comment on your cooling systems. I know you have external pressure relief tanks, but I don't know if there are drain fittings on them. I don't think there were for Saabs. Also, I don't even know if there were pressure relief caps on them for sure. Please comment and mark up the proposed language so we get the best rule possible.

GCR
Item 1. Effective 3/1/09: Insert a new section 9.3.15 and renumber subsequent paragraphs:
Coolant Catch Tanks Cooling systems shall be equipped with coolant catch tanks with a minimum capacity of 1 US quart.

I think it needs to be reworked to clarify its intent as in regards to what is required and when this rule is applicable.

I assume the intent of 9.3.15 is for water cooled radiators, having a pressure relief cap, whose neck has a hose fitting for conduit of steam and fluid to a safe location. Most modern cars today have a catch tank of the type required by this rule, but some such as my '66 mustang had just a dump hose. For a '66 mustang and other cars with a pressure relief and neck with hose fitting, this rule is clear and easy to implement.

There are several cases where it is not so clear and easy;

1) The rule does not tell what the tank should be hooked to; I believe there are examples of cars where the radiator system has a separate pressure relief tanks of a quart or larger vapor space to capture coolant expansion. I believe its common practice for these systems to have no hose fitting in the pressure relief neck. I do not have the ability to confirm this, but I believe that 1980's Saab 99 and 900's, some VW’s, and Porsche 924/944s all have systems of this type.

If there are cars without hose connections, I think it becomes very difficult to implement this rule with the alternatives being
- Replace the OEM pressure relief tank with custom tank that has a relief fitting. (Expensive and difficult because this would be a custom built pressurized reservoir with multiple cooling hose connections)
- Replace the OEM pressure relief cap with one that has a built in relief fitting. (I don’t know of any available)
- Shroud the neck of the pressure relief cap and plumb that to a catch tank. (I think there would be space interference with the hood as the tank is at the top of the engine compartment)
To eliminate this problem, I recommend allowing pressurize relief tanks as an alternative to catch tanks as long as their vapor capacity is 1 quart or larger. (Note; the one quart rule may be tight for Saab and VW’s.)

2) The rule does not define what cooling systems this applies to; Does this rule apply to any fluid cooling system or just the engine radiator cooling system?
- My water cooled race car has an oil cooler as part of its lubrication system. It’s also
common for lubricant heat exchangers to be added to differentials and power
steering systems. As these systems are closed and have no external pressure
reliefs; how, where, and for what purpose would I connect the catch tank to them?
- My car has a cool suit system. How and where do I connect a catch tank to it?
To eliminate this problem, I recommend that this rule only apply to “radiator cooling systems with an pressure relief” per the GCR definition of Radiator.


I don’t think its SCCA’s intent to put catch tanks on oil coolers or make it very difficult for Saab and Porsche drivers to conform to the rule. As such, I think this rule should be held and studied further. An option to address my above concerns that SCCA may want to consider would be modifying 9.3.15 as follows
Radiator Coolant Catch Tanks
Radiator engine cooling systems having a means of pressure relief shall have either a pressure relief line connected to an coolant catch tank having a minimum capacity of 1 US quart or a pressure relief tank within the cooling system that has at minimum 1 US quart volume vapor space between the normal liquid level and the relief device during operation.

[Greg Amy]

Bob, a couple of points.

- First, "coolant", in most common-usage of the word, refers to the water-based portion of the engine cooling systems. There's no intent here to apply this to anything else.

- Second, the intent of this rule, as I read it, is to ensure that open, blow-off systems, such as what's on most 'Merican cars, have tanks of sufficient size to capture all coolant that may bleed when the engine gets hot. Volkswagens do not have a "catch tank" per se; the V-dub (and Audi and presumably Porsche) system is a fully-enclosed, flow-through system. The plastic tank you see is nothing more than a convenient reservoir/expansion tank, and is actually part of the cooling flow circuit.

I see no application of this rule to either lubrication oils nor to flow-through systems such as the VW/Audi example. At worst there may need to be a simple edit to the proposed rule that this would not apply to fully-enclosed, non-blow-off, flow-through systems.

GA

[tom91ita]

is the section number referenced right? it said to add 9.3.15 but there is already


9.3.15. CRYOGENIC TREATMENT
Cryogenic treatment of components is allowed unless specifically prohib-ited in the category or class preparation rules.

am i in the wrong spot?

[Greg Amy]

GCR
Item 1. Effective 3/1/09: Insert a new section 9.3.15 and renumber subsequent paragraphs:

...

[Gary L]

Volkswagens do not have a "catch tank" per se; the V-dub (and Audi and presumably Porsche) system is a fully-enclosed, flow-through system. The plastic tank you see is nothing more than a convenient reservoir/expansion tank, and is actually part of the cooling flow circuit.
GABut if there is a pressure cap (and therefore, a relief orifice) on that expansion tank, the rule would apply just as surely as it would to the pressure cap and overflow tube on top of Bob's '66 Mustang radiator. I agree that the wording of the proposed rule could use some work.

[Greg Amy]

But if there is a pressure cap (and therefore, a relief orifice) on that expansion tank, the rule would apply just as surely as it would to the pressure cap and overflow tube on top of Bob's '66 Mustang radiator.
Why?

The designed intent of Bob's Mustang's overflow tank is to bleed excess liquid coolant overboard due to expansion, because there is no expansion area inside the cooling system. Bob's V-dub, on the other hand, is a fully enclosed system, built with expansion area internally (in the properly-named "expansion tank"), thus is not intended to blow off liquid at any time. Unlike on his Mustang, his V-dub's "radiator cap" (actually, the "expansion tank cap") is not intended to allow air/liquid to escape ever except as a point of last resort to keep other parts from failing (such as a radiator hose).

To require a "catch can" in such a system is analogous to requiring a "catch can" for all other parts of the system that may fail (such as a radiator hose catch can).

But, if the rule is enforced to the letter of the law, then Bob's system is, in fact, illegal because it does not actually have the required "catch can". And to require one would negate the functions of the system (actually - to the letter of the rules if you want to get picky - it doesn't say that catch can has to be attached to the cooling system...)

[Gary L]

Why?

The intent of Bob's Mustang's overflow tank is to bleed excess liquid coolant overboard due to expansion, because there is no expansion area inside the cooling system. Bob's V-dub, on the other hand, is a fully enclosed system, built with expansion area internally (in the properly-named "expansion tank"), thus is not intended to blow off liquid at any time. Unlike on his Mustang, his V-dub's "radiator cap" (actually, the "expansion tank cap") is not intended to allow air/liquid to escape ever except as a point of last resort to keep other parts from failing (such as a radiator hose).

To require a "catch can" in such a system is analogous to requiring a "catch can" for all other parts of the system that may fail (such as a radiator hose catch can).

But, if the rule is enforced to the letter of the law, then Bob's system is, in fact, illegal because it does not actually have the required "catch can". And to require one would negate the functions of the system (actually - to the letter of the rules if you want to get picky - it doesn't say that catch can has to be attached to the cooling system...)
I would have to assume the purpose of the proposed rule is to help keep coolant off the racing surface. To that end, the fact that the V-dub expansion tank is not intended to allow liquid to escape, will be of little consequence when something goes wrong. It's no different than the '66 Mustang, it just takes another lap or two for it to happen. And possibly even less, if the system was inadvertently overfilled.

[itracer]

the fact that the V-dub expansion tank is not intended to allow liquid to escape, will be of little consequence when something goes wrong... And possibly even less, if the system was inadvertently overfilled.

So you want me to drill a hole in my closed system and create a weak point so that I can prevent something that hasn't happened yet? I think we should require coolant catch tanks on air cooled beetle too. There is no breather valve on the VW system. So there is no place to vent it from. To do so, would illegally modify the cooing system IMHO.

[joeg]

In my car's stock application, the Rad resovoir is open--hose from rad filler neck just drapes itself into the resevoir (half of which is the molded windshield washer tank!).

What can I do with this new rule. Scrap my washer tank for a nice aluminum rad overflow tank???

[pfcs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=279813#post279813)
the fact that the V-dub expansion tank is not intended to allow liquid to escape, will be of little consequence when something goes wrong... And possibly even less, if the system was inadvertently overfilled.

So you want me to drill a hole in my closed system and create a weak point so that I can prevent something that hasn't happened yet? I think we should require coolant catch tanks on air cooled beetle too. There is no breather valve on the VW system. So there is no place to vent it from. To do so, would illegally modify the cooing system IMHO

The late VW spherical tanks have a countersunk area where the cap recesses; in that recess is a drain passage the comes out the back of the sphere as a rectangular opening 1/2"x1". If the vehicle overheats badly, SOME of the void comes out this irregulayly shaped opening (its a "spherical rectalangle"). Only an asshole should be required to connect a hose to it.

[Gary L]

So you want me to drill a hole in my closed system and create a weak point so that I can prevent something that hasn't happened yet? I think we should require coolant catch tanks on air cooled beetle too. There is no breather valve on the VW system. So there is no place to vent it from. To do so, would illegally modify the cooing system IMHO.
If you have a pressure cap (by that I mean one that is designed to open at a pre-set pressure), you already have a hole in your "closed system". Consequently, it is no different than the '66 Mustang setup... when something goes wrong, it is going to piss coolant on the track. By design.

[Greg Amy]

If you have a pressure cap (by that I mean one that is designed to open at a pre-set pressure)...
They're not designed that way, Gary.

The VWoA group uses an expansion cap with a one-way valve, designed to allow air *in* when in vacuum, but block exit of any liquids, gas, or pressure *out*. I only mentioned the "last resort" for the cap because that's what typically fails first (if you don't pop a hose). I've link a photo at the bottom.

But this is not necessarily germane to the conversation. I think Bob's point is that we now have a requirement for a "catch can", a catch-all (har-de-har) rule that doesn't necessarily apply to all systems. I was simply pointing out that the rule was not intended to apply to systems such as the VWoA's; you certainly don't want to hack into these systems to add a catch can, it would be problematic, dangerous, and flat stupid.

If anything, the rule will be enforced intelligently, i.e., tech inspectors will recognize this rule doesn't apply to these systems; if not then it will need to be adjusted accordingly. - GA



http://12.153.160.115/images/catalog/full/443121321.jpg

[Gary L]

They're not designed that way, Gary.
I agree... but what you've pictured is not a pressure relief cap. And I would agree, that type of system should not require a catch tank.

I'm referring to those systems that have an expansion tank with a normal radiator pressure cap on that expansion tank, designed to relieve coolant pressure at a preset value. I suspect this is the very type of system that Bob R. was referring to in his original post, when he brought up the Saab, Porsche, et al. I know I can certainly point at one car that has such a system. I race it... the ubiquitous Volvo 140.

[Greg Amy]

I'm referring to those systems that have an expansion tank with a normal radiator pressure cap on that expansion tank, designed to relieve coolant pressure at a preset value.
Roger, I agree. That's what this new rule is designed to address. But, it throws out this all-encompassing, all-assuming net...

BTW, Porsche's system is the same as VW's; in fact, many Audi and Porsche expansion tanks are actually the same part number as a Volkswagen Rabbit's (VW, Porsche, and Audi all share common engineering roots)...

GA

[JeffYoung]

I've only scanned some of this, so forgive me if I am off base.

My car has a radiator without a cap, and a hose to an expansion tank which does have a cap. The expansion tank has an overflow hose that dumps to the ground.

My read on the rule is that it is simply trying to prevent the latter, which I agree with -- overflow coolant should go to a 1 quart overflow "tank" (or Gatorade bottle as the case may be) with at least 1 qt of vapor space. And that is what I shall do -- just run the overflow line to a one quart Haterade bottle.

On the VWs, you aren't dumping coolant anywhere by the very design of the system and while I agree that doesn't fit "nicely" within the rule, since it is clear from the design of the system that coolant "overflow" isn't going going to ground, then all seems to be ok (to me anyway).

[Gary L]

I've only scanned some of this, so forgive me if I am off base.

My car has a radiator without a cap, and a hose to an expansion tank which does have a cap. The expansion tank has an overflow hose that dumps to the ground.
And the system that I am referring to is like yours, but there is no hose, nor a nipple for same... simply a hole in the neck of the tank that is uncovered when the cap relieves pressure at the preset value.

Greg - I may be wrong, but I would almost bet if you go back far enough, you'll find the same system (as my '71 Volvo) on the German cars... an expansion tank with a regular radiator pressure cap on the tank instead of the radiator. As I said in my first post on the subject, the wording of the proposed rule could use some work.

[Greg Amy]

Greg - I may be wrong, but I would almost bet if you go back far enough, you'll find the same system (as my '71 Volvo) on the German cars...
Believe it or not Gary, VWoA has used the same exact general design from the very first water-cooled VW, the 1974 VW Rabbit. In fact, the expansion tank was the same exact part number from that '74 all the way through all the A1 model lines (Rabbit, Scirocco, Jetta), gasoline and diesel. The only differences were tank and radiator shape and size for chassis-specific placement, like the longitudinal placement in the Dashers, Audis, Porsche 924/944, and the space requirements of the A2 Golf chassis onward...and all through it they used the same exact expansion tank cap. Hell, my 2000 S4 still uses a variant of that same exact design and I'd not be surprised if Audi and V-dub still do it for new stuff today.

In fact, this system is so efficient that many other pure-race cars use Scirocco radiators and expansion tanks... :shrug:

I will admit I haven't seen an early 1970's Audi 100Ls in probably 20 years, but if someone is racing one of those then the cooling system is the LEAST of their worries... ;)

[Gary L]

...and all through it they used the same exact expansion tank cap.;)
Then someone needs to tell the suppliers about this. :)

Here's what the internet parts places seem to think is the correct tank for the early (I checked '77-82) Porsche 924, and it definitely does not appear to have the screw-on cap, rather the pressure relief type I'm talking about. Like Jeff's tank, this one even has a nipple to hook up an overflow hose.

http://www.bluebrickracing.mysite.com/images/924_tank.jpg

[shwah]

Gary, that nipple on the filler neck connects via hose to the radiator. The larger bottom nipple connects to the water exit of the head. Yes that is the VW system, and yes it is fully closed.

[pfcs]

http://images.imcparts.net/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/imc/images/small/1H0121321A.jpgThis is the A3 VW expansion tank and cap. The 2 hose nipples are for circulation. There's no way to plumb a recovery tank that is sensible. As far as I know, these caps relieve pressure @15-17psi. They do in my shop when the pressure tester is teed into the system.
EDIT-see tank on next page

[pfcs]

http://images.imcparts.net/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/imc/images/small/1H0121407CMY.jpg

[Greg Amy]

Then someone needs to tell the suppliers about this. :)
OK, you got me on that one. ;) Woulda sworn we sold the Rabbit cap to the 924/944 crowd :shrug:. But, it's the same general idea, different application...

For grins I checked out my S4 after getting out of work tonight; it uses the external-threaded cap as illustrated above for the A3. Same idea, though: it screws onto an expansion tank that's part of the circulatory system.

My Nissan, on the other hand (I looked at my street car, but we never changed the design on the race car) uses the tried-and-true radiator blow-off cap going to an external dead-end tank. That tank *may* meet the 1-quart rule, but we'd have to measure it to be sure.

No clue off-hand what the Integra race car uses...

GA

[924Guy]

That's exactly the expansion tank I have in my racecar - Gary, you have the part exactly right. Yes, this uses a typical radiator cap with pressure relief.

Chris, I think you're a bit wrong. The upper rad hose connects to a small nipple in the front of the exp tank, which is almost invisible in this picture. The nipple in the neck connects to a hose... which in the stock vehicle config dumps on the ground like a '66 Rustang. I've routed mine to an overflow bottle. Here's a pic:
http://vaughanscott.com/construction/suspension/STB_installed_sm.jpg

My '82 924 Turbo does not have this tank. Rather, it has the completely closed system as has been described for the later VW's; in fact, it uses the same cap. No provision to route any overflow anywhere. The 944's IIRC use a typical rad cap... I think.

[JeffYoung]

Vaughan, off topic (forgive me) but is your car L-Jetronic? If so, can you shoot me a PM?

Thanks.

Jeff

[Gary L]

Vaughn - Thanks! I was pretty sure I knew what I had seen, way back when. :happy204:

[Bob Roth]

I like where this is heading, here are a couple if comments;
1) I recommend we work on the wording. Oil coolers cool the engine. There are tech inspectors that are sticklers for the wording. We owe them the respect of having rules that say exactly what is meant. Otherwise, if someone gets bounced because the chief of tech says your oil cooler doesn't have a catch can, that's what the rule says. (The GCR definition of "Cooling System - Those components directly associated with cooling the engine, including any hoses, fans, and radiators.)
2) In looking at the vw/volvo tank shown by Gary L, that car has a conventional cap and drain fitting, if you add an catch tank and you are good to go. Or with the new rule, if there is a quart of capacity in that tank, you would be fine too. Some might argue that if it were overheating, it would still probably drip some, I would be fine if that tank was required to be connected to a catch tank as its easy to do.
3) What concerns me are systems using caps with built in reliefs like the VW cap shown by Greg. I have to agree that PFCS is correct that it it must have a pressure relief in it. Otherwise a badly overheating system would be a bomb, pressurzed to 300 psi or higher. Its on cars like these that has the problems because there isn't a practical way to plumb a pressure relief line to the cap to drain the coolant in a case of overheating. Drilling a hole in the tank doesn't fix anything unless you put a relief valve in the hole as you need to keep the system pressurized to work.

[Knestis]

http://images.imcparts.net/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/imc/images/small/1H0121407CMY.jpg

I think that's a picture of my "coolant catch tank."

K

[Streetwise guy]

The cooling system is ALWAYS designed to bleed off pressure. Always. The appearance of the cap makes no difference. Europeans tend towards the cap being on a remote bottle, with expansion room there. They also tend to spew coolant everywhere when they overheat. There is no simple solution, other than to beware of steaming Volkswagens in turn two. My Neon also spewed most of its coolant out the largish factory overflow tank when I cooked the head gasket, which makes for a very slick right rear. If a car heats badly enough, it will spew on something. Mine is now set up to spew on the windshield instead of the tires..
.

[shwah]

Huh. Surprising that the 924 has a non-VW style system, when it was conceived and designed as a VW originally. Learn something new every day.

[Flyinglizard]

How about a minimum catch tank size, either the stock expansion tan( IE german stuff) or the traditional overflow tank, .
Either way there should be a qt allowed for overflow. 1 Qt of airspace in the top of the VW tank ,or 1qt at the end of the overflow hose, on a Mustang.
Why have any new wording at all ? Every one had pretty much what was needed. Techs seemed to let it go as raced.
MM

[Z3_GoCar]

Bob, a couple of points.

- First, "coolant", in most common-usage of the word, refers to the water-based portion of the engine cooling systems. There's no intent here to apply this to anything else.

- Second, the intent of this rule, as I read it, is to ensure that open, blow-off systems, such as what's on most 'Merican cars, have tanks of sufficient size to capture all coolant that may bleed when the engine gets hot. Volkswagens do not have a "catch tank" per se; the V-dub (and Audi and presumably Porsche) system is a fully-enclosed, flow-through system. The plastic tank you see is nothing more than a convenient reservoir/expansion tank, and is actually part of the cooling flow circuit.

I see no application of this rule to either lubrication oils nor to flow-through systems such as the VW/Audi example. At worst there may need to be a simple edit to the proposed rule that this would not apply to fully-enclosed, non-blow-off, flow-through systems.

GA

Greg, you can add certain years of BMW's to that list too:

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/diagrams/b/y/27.png

This the radiator assembly that's in my car now. If I went with an aftermarket aluminum unit, then I could see adding an additional tank, but on the stock system there's no place to add anything, not even a hole in the radiator neck.


Huh. Surprising that the 924 has a non-VW style system, when it was conceived and designed as a VW originally. Learn something new every day.

Going back 24 years ago when my dad and I were rebuiling the motor to my Audi 100, we were told by some parts guy that the 924 motor was sourced from Audi, not VW, and so it makes sense that they'd use an Audi type expansion bottle.

[pfcs]

I have to wonder how many drivers feel a need for this new rule?
I never found spilling coolant to be a problem on the track from overheating. When a car overheats, the voiding starts slowly after a lot of steam and generally is of minimal danger. More often, something comes apart, breaks, or is broken, resulting in a fast/large leak, none of which would be collected by a catch tank.

[JimLill]

One solution would be to tee in a simple relief valve that punks to a bottle (you can get them for $15) and defeat the VW pressure relief cap.

McMaster-Carr 48935K35

http://www.mcmaster.com/catalog/114/gfx/small/48935kp1s.gif

[Bob Roth]

How about this?
Coolant Catch Tanks; Cooling systems that have a hose nipple at the pressure relief cap shall have a coolant catch tank that has a minimum capacity of 1 US quart. Cooling systems having a pressurized reservoir that allows a minimum of 1 quart vapor space under normal coolant levels between the coolant and pressure relief cap are exempted from this rule. OEM cooling systems on DOT approved cars that do not have a hose nipple at the pressure relief cap are exempted from this rule as long as the cooling system retains the OEM pressure relief cap assembly.

Reasoning;
1) This rule would apply to cooling systems having a pressure relief cap. Oil cooling systems do not have pressure relief caps, therefore this rule cannot apply to them.
2) Some OEM DOT approved car cooling systems (VW and others) have their pressure vents built into the pressure relief caps and do not have a nipple. This exempts IT and Touring cars having their original pressure relief cap assembly, avoiding for their owners the expense of fabricating custom tanks and pressure relief caps.
3) This rule applies to all classes including GT and formula. By limiting the exemption to OEM cooling systems on DOT cars, it prevents custom systems having neither a vapor space nor a catch tank.
I think its important that the rule be clear as to where it applies. Also, I think it has to address cars which do not have a relief nipple, or that have more than 1 qt internal space. Please comment.

[JimLill]

on my VW I split an expansion tank open when the fan failed to run, thankfully in my driveway! So the rule hardly covers that but the 2 things lead me towards some research.

- the tank split because my cap was bad
- on that VW, the caps releases at 17-19 psi

So my plan is to conform to the rule with an add-on relief valve to a puke bottle rather than buy a new cap (I'll defeat the cap port altogether)

[rsportvolvo]

**this applies to closed systems as use on newer cars

If the coolant system is over-pressurized then something will eventually meet it's design limit and fail. The purpose of the pressure relief cap is to save more expensive items in the coolant system. I'm not sure about VAG cars, but Volvo offers 3 different cap designs (0.75 bar, 1.0 bar, 1.50 bar) for their expansion tank (not a catch can as the coolant can and does drain back into the radiator). At $5.00 each I can afford to have a tested spare.

The closed loop expansion tank is a puke can for the radiator. Adding a puke can for the puke can seems silly. (added)

How many folks get a new expansion tank or trust the old one to hold up? I'm sure many of the older tanks are reaching their brittle fracture pressure limit (BFPL) after 10+ years of heat cycling. Instead of reinventing the closed loop expansion tank systems common to most newer cars, howabout using a fresh expansion tank and pressure cap? Then pressure testing before hitting the track.

[JimLill]

The closed loop expansion tank is a puke can for the radiator. Adding a puke can for the puke can seems silly. (added).


The euphemism "puke can" refers to a vessel that keeps expelled fluids from going into the air or onto the ground. When pressure cap on an expansion tank lets go, where do the fluids go? Ergo, how can the expansion tank be a puke can?

[rsportvolvo]

The euphemism "puke can" refers to a vessel that keeps expelled fluids from going into the air or onto the ground. When pressure cap on an expansion tank lets go, where do the fluids go? Ergo, how can the expansion tank be a puke can?

The volume require to relieve system pressure is quite small. The expansion tank will contain the fluid in most cases and any released fluid will most likely be in a gaseous state. Your case was a catastrophic failure of the expansion tank. The expansion tank is a puke can for the radiator. Having a pressurized tank that has the ability to drain back into the radiator makes it a close loop system.

Your issue with the expansion tank was due to faulty components, not a faulty design. So instead of changing the design (proven over the years and approved by DOT and TUV) the components should be tested before hitting the track. Did you test the cap afterwards to confirm the cap was the culprit vs. the tank?

The puke can addition would really only apply to the radiator cap setups use on many Japanese cars and older American cars.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Ultimately it's up to the car owner/driver and the local scrutineer's to say if the setup is safe and meets the letter of the law.

[JimLill]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Ultimately it's up to the car owner/driver and the local scrutineer's to say if the setup is safe and meets the letter of the law.

so am I....... my failure only led me to do research and has nil to do with on my take on what, if anything, I need to do to be legal.

[pfcs]

David-how long does it take to build a Volvo?

[rsportvolvo]

David-how long does it take to build a Volvo?
Too long in my case. I should have my car finished this year. I've spent a lot of time researching the the Volvo 240 after Bob Griffith built one and gave up when Eric Curran tested it and said it was "a turd." It takes some work to prove Bob Griffith wrong. It's taken a long time to get the right info compiled to have a competitive build sheet. Now I need to execute.