two gas tanks popped in accident

on 8/30/03 at Buttonwillow Raceway, CA not one but two fuel tanks were popped during a Pro 7/IT7 race in an accident involving six cars in a high speed corner with a raging fire following. after close inspection it became apparent to me we should not only be allowed but encouraged to brace our rear frame rails and put a bar in protecting our gas tanks from rear end collisions. most walked away but it could have been real bad, luckly only one was transported and treated for inhalation. Five cars were total writeoffs.

------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC

Are fuel cells not allowed?

Hey Daryl-Are these cars running the stock tanks ????

one had a stock tank other was a fuel safe, wouldnt have mattered on the stock tank car as the car that hit it made it all the way to the diff because it went under the rear bumper beause there is nothing sticking down below the bumper to stop it, except the fuel tank.....

I have seen fuel cells get "squished" pretty bad-and not burst(stock cars) I would be in favor of any type of protection back there! Lets face it-under heavy braking the gas tank is just hanging out there like a target!

If you use a cell, don't get one of those "legal" but dangerous poly fuel cells. They are worse than a stock tank.

If one is planning to brace the rear frame, rules legality might need to be considered.

Sorry to hear of the damage but glad no one was seriously hurt.

37 ITB

Club rules VS Life and limb....hmmm, sorry Club loses, let em protest me. joe, you've seen my car, I pitted right next to you at laguna in june, I have 20 extra feet of roll cage for safety the pro7/rx7 folks said wasnt legal, thats why you see ITA on the side of my car. After watching that accident my wife said to me "will your car do that if someone runs into you?", I nodded yes, then she said "your stupid if you dont fix it" and I have to agree with her.

------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited September 02, 2003).]

Let's see, mounting a fuel cell is free. Encouraged even. I don't see a problem using 1.5" diam roll cage tubing to make the fuel cell mounting. Attaching it to the frame rails seems pretty logical...

Glad to hear no one was seriously hurt.

Daryl, I completely agree. However, we all need to read the rules and attempt to comply. If at some point, one finds himself at a crossroads where the rules say you can't but you want to because it improves safety, then each of us has to make a choice. SCCA does have a process to request changes to these rules, although many of us have lost faith in the process due to various reasons.

I might mention that my Capri had a rotary molded fuel cell and extensive tubing around it protecting it. My car has leaf springs and the rules specify that roll bar tubing can be attached to the rear suspension mounting point. OK, roll tubes went through the rear firewall and attached to the rear leaf spring mounting points. Another tube attached the two mounting points together. BTW, I installed a bladder fuel cell in place of the rotary molded cell.

On the other hand, I actually prefer a chassis that will give and absorb energy in a wreck, energy that my body wouldn't have to absorb so I'm not a big advocated of too many bars.

37 ITB

I just have to say Thanks for posting this topic. First off, I am glad nobody was seriously hurt. But this topic does remind us (drivers) that there are risks on the track. I like to think of them as a calculated risks. A fuel fire may not be likely, but if the odds are increased by adding a few protective bars behind the fuel tank...Why not add one or three.

I'm planning some changes for a GT-3 1st gen chassis I bought. Hopefully I can get all these changes done for next year...But one of the changes was going to be to beef up the cell protection. If I was staying in IT, I would seriously think about welding in a few pieces of steel behind the stock tank.

Yes, we should always comply with the rules, so maybe this is something that should be forwarded to the powers that be. Or has this been proposed in the past?

------------------
Allen Brown
#36 IT-1
GT-3 in 2004 or 2005
[email protected]

Daryl, I was working grid that day. Lucky for me I had my boyfriends camera around my neck at the time. I will be submitting the pictures to Cal club. I think you have a good point.. Its like RX-Pinto is no joke. One good hit to the rear and theres nothing to protect the fuel tank.. The explosion and accident itself was really nasty. I'm so glad that no one was seriously hurt in it. I talked with a few 7's drivers the next day and they talked about all the near misses that happened on top of the all the cars that were involved. It was a real challenge getting every body back in running order.

Well, if it makes a car safer for competition then I say why not. I am running for SCCA council. Everyone thinks I'm nuts for doing so but I think it will be fun.. (I hope).

------------------
Toodles,
Stacey_B aol IM: SCCAStaceyIB 1990PGL SCCA STSL "Girls Do It Better" Cal Club T&S, BWRP,WS,Lag,Hallett www.scpoc.com : www.probetalk.com Racing is my life its my blood its my addiction.

thanks Allen and Stac, what im putting in is a U shaped bar just like you see on a super production stock car that welds to a plated section of the very rearward frame rails, im going to have ten bent and give them out at cost, once those are gone ill have ten more bent, ect.

------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC

I would hope that we are all wearing REAL driver thermal protection, too - rather than the bare minimum required by the rules.

Three layers retardent material - minimum, since a typical 3-layer suit plus undies starts to provide enough time to get out

Balaclava - even if you don't have a beard

Full-face helmet - perhaps the most important feature, with the visor installed and down

Good gloves - full Nomex protection, no places separating skin from heat with just leather

Kirk

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited September 04, 2003).]

And I want the car like they had in Demolition Man. Instead of an air bag, the entire cockpit fills with foam to cushion the driver! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Speaking of Demolition Man. It appears that some day Arnold S. will be President.. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif and they will name a libray after him..

------------------
Toodles,
Stacey_B AOL IM: SCCAStaceyIB 1990PGL SCCA STSL "Girls Do It Better" Cal Club T&S, BWRP,WS,Lag,Hallett www.scpoc.com : www.probetalk.com Racing is my life. Winner One Lap of America 2003- SSGT2 class 1996 Ford Probe GT.

Just to clarify what really happened:

I was in that race, qualified 5th so luckily all that stuff happened behind me. Only one tank ruptured. It was a stock tank, and it took a slightly angled rear impact at somewhere around 80mph.

We had one guy who tried to gain a bunch of positions on the start and he just got worse from that point. By the fifth turn he lost it for good in Talladega, the car came back on track in a cloud of dust and the melee ensued. They black flagged the race and as I came in to the pits I saw the #19 car burning in the rear with flames that must have been 30 feet high. It was really scary to see, and even harder to get back to racing after they cleaned up.

There were five cars damaged, four of which are totaled. All the drivers were ok. One driver was taken to the hospital because his fire bottle launched into the firewall on impact, sheared the pin and let loose. He inhaled whatever chemical it was in the extinguisher. He was released that night.

I think many of us forget how dangerous our sport can be.

------------------
Ed Reich
Cal Club - SCCA

I forgot to add that the same #19 car was hit in the same manner at slightly higher speed the month before in turn 8 at Willow. The stock tank had been crunched and had a slight hole in it. No fire. The car was straightened out enough to race, with a "new" stock tank put in and finished second on Sunday.

I wonder if the damage the car sustained from the Willow impact weakened it enough for the second crash to be worse than it could have possibly been otherwise.

------------------
Ed Reich
Cal Club - SCCA

It appears that some day Arnold S. will be President.. and they will name a libray after him..
------------------
Toodles,
Stacey_B AOL IM: SCCAStaceyIB
=============================================
Ahnold iss Constitutionally barred from becoming President of the US. That does not preclude him from becoming President of the SCCA. That could be fun.

I have ALWAYS questioned the safety requirements for rollcages, seat mounts (especially), and fuel cell mounts in IT cars. I would have liked to do my car differently, but I was told that it would not be legal(!). It would be safe, but not legal. I get it, it has to be done the way SCCA does things, since it has to be as produced...NO, I don't get it!

Rule: 10 Safety 2. B Additional reinforcement may be added to support the fuel cell but such reinforcement shall not attach to the roll cage.

I would interpet that as allowing additional reinforcemt to the fuel tank. It would be possible under the rules that you were intending on installing a fuel cell or at one time had one and now have a stock tank which is also legal. I would see it as a non-issue under the rules. It doesnt give the person a competitive advantage. It will add weight to the car and the reinforcement would have to follow the rules that govern hight to ground. Other than that, I say go for it..

Stacey M. Bertran Running for SCCA Board member.


------------------
Toodles,
Stacey_B AOL IM: SCCAStaceyIB 1990PGL SCCA STSL "Girls Do It Better" Cal Club T&S, BWRP,WS,Lag,Hallett www.scpoc.com : www.probetalk.com Racing is my life. Winner One Lap of America 2003- SSGT2 class 1996 Ford Probe GT.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Racy-Stacey:
Rule: 10 Safety 2. B Additional reinforcement may be added to support the fuel cell but such reinforcement shall not attach to the roll cage.

I would interpet that as allowing additional reinforcemt to the fuel tank.
Stacey M. Bertran Running for SCCA Board member.

---

Respectfully disagree here....IF you run a cell, then the door has been opened, and in that room you can add bars and so on....but if you keep the stock tank, then you can't add or remove anything not specifically mentioned in the rules.

I think there are limits to allowable cell sizes, and as they weigh more, many folks choose to stay stock.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Jake you only Quoted some parts of my statement and by what you quoted it looks like i have no grounds for my statement.

But in fact in my post I clearly give a reason for what I stated or what I believe as an interpetation of the rules.

Besides I really cant see why in this particular case. That someone would be questioned on the reinforment of a stock fuel tank. It does add saftey and does not give the person a competitive advantage.

Perhaps the rules should be alterd to include this senario and by what means of reinforcement would be allowable. Such as 1/4 flat bar and not tube steel.

Toodles,
Stacey_B

------------------
Toodles,
Stacey_B AOL IM: SCCAStaceyIB 1990PGL SCCA STSL "Girls Do It Better" Cal Club T&S, BWRP,WS,Lag,Hallett www.scpoc.com : www.probetalk.com Racing is my life. Winner One Lap of America 2003- SSGT2 class 1996 Ford Probe GT.

I agree with Jake.

In reading the ITCS it is clear that the additional reinforcement is allowed only if a fuel cell is installed.

Nowhere does it allow additional structure around the stock tank.

Well, while I agree that it might be a good idea in certain cars to add reinforcement, it is opening a can of worms....
When is the bunch of bars reinforcement for the tank, but adding some chassis stiffening? At the very least it is a grey area.

I re-read your scenario, but in a protest situation, I don't think the official will care if there is a cel going in, or has been taken out. If the car is being raced in an illegal condition it is going to be considered illegal. The officials will always boil it down to black and white.

That said, it would be interesting to write a proposal detailing the issue, and a suggested solution. But it will be a bit of a balancing act to write a rule that effectively allows gas tank protection without allowing chassis reinforcement. As a racer, I can assure you that if they allowed me to add structure to protect the tank, I will search high and low to find a way to have that same structure stiffen as much as possible and add weight where I want it, and I'm sure most others will as well. Perhaps the rule would be most effective if it were applied on a car by car basis, but historically, the rulesmakers are loath to handle things in that manner, and for good reason.

I would like to see such a proposal, but I expect the response would be that we currently have the opportunity to reinforce if we run a cel, so there is no onus on the CB to add such a rule. (all IMHO, of course!)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

I see where you guys are coming from...

I guess they (officials) are a little more strict than I imagined concerning this. Oh well

So if you were to run a fuel cell there must be rules concerning what you can and cannot do to reinforce it. Other wise you could do the same thing, stiffen the underside, and add that structural rigidity.

There’s bending the rules to cheat and there’s using the rules to make for safer racing. Like you said, people will take advantage. So I cant compete with that. The only way I can see us getting anywhere on this issue is if someone presents it to the board for review. Then a official ruling can be made and that will be that. But if nothing else this did offer up some good debate..

Take care,
Stacey_B


------------------
Toodles,
Stacey_B AOL IM: SCCAStaceyIB 1990PGL SCCA STSL "Girls Do It Better" Cal Club T&S, BWRP,WS,Lag,Hallett www.scpoc.com : www.probetalk.com Racing is my life. Winner One Lap of America 2003- SSGT2 class 1996 Ford Probe GT.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Racy-Stacey:
So if you were to run a fuel cell there must be rules concerning what you can and cannot do to reinforce it. Other wise you could do the same thing, stiffen the underside, and add that structural rigidity.

There’s bending the rules to cheat and there’s using the rules to make for safer racing.

---

Right there, Stacey. I suspect that when the guys write the rules, they occassionally allow a little latitude when the result is a safer car. An added tempation to installing a cel would be the possible additional chassis strengthening that would come with the cel "structure" wink wink....

And they're ok with that.

(just like the NASCAR door bar rule where you get to gut the whole door. Whoo hoo! 30 pounds of crap gone! I'll take that deal!)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Since you mentioned the NASCAR bar.

SCCA rules allow one to install a NASCAR style bar(s) and gut the door and make the car less safe.

The reason for this is the SCCA definition of NASCAR style door bars. Look it up, last time I looked it was one bar curved into the door cavity.

Sorry to hijack the thread
37 ITB

Actually Joe, the definition states "...one or more..."

A protective cage around the fuel tank/cell should be added to the rulebook. Manditory for cells, recommended for stock tanks. I've seen a few cells that were awfully vulnerable under braking. I'm sure that some cars would benifit more than others with a little extra bracing around the cell, but so be it.

Quote:

---

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">(just like the NASCAR door bar rule where you get to gut the whole door. Whoo hoo! 30 pounds of crap gone! I'll take that deal!)</font>

---

Doesn't it also say that the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed? Hmmm.. how many door panels have we all seen with that were non-existant.

------------------
Scott
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

<A HREF="http://www.pfmracing.com" TARGET=_blank> http://home.swbell.net/srhea66/PFMSigPic.jpg
www.pfmracing.com </A>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
Doesn't it also say that the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed? Hmmm.. how many door panels have we all seen with that were non-existant.

---

Yup...but I think that is the "carrot" for going that route. I bet they intentionally left the wording loose and are fine with folks being a bit aggresive in taking out more than they might absolutely have to. Still, if you cut half of an already swiss cheesed inner door panel to fit the 'NASCAR" bars in, you'll be left with a jagged mess hanging in space. No need for that...much safer without it.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]