Limited Prep

[JWiley]

Greg,

Sounds like you have a very well-thought out program--hope you are successful; I will not be leaving ITC as you did as a front-runner, more as a moving chicane.

Your last post sort of reinforced my sense of general confusion at the rules; it sounds like you were able to run limited prep with your glass in place, which I thought was prohibited. I take it you installed the full fire system as required

Thanks for all the inpui!

James Wiley

[racer_tim]

James, the only glass you HAVE TO REMOVE are the door glass. Headlights also if want to consider those "glass".

As far as being competitive in GP? Last year at Laguna Seca with my new motor, and decent (read used) slicks, I did a 1:50. Qual record is 1:47 and the race record is 1:45. I'm in the hunt with my regional competitors (Full Prep Spitfire, Full Prep Datusn 510, Limited Prep MG but am not quite up to "National" competition level. I need to do more to the car to be there, but I'm just happy to be out there with the "big boys".

I currently run a stock windshield, rear window, and side windows on my LP VW Rabbit. I do have the required tabs in the front and the straps in the rear. That's the minimum as far as "glass" goes.

Of course, your could replace all that with Lexan but that's an additional cost and would be "nice" to do if your car is over weight, but again, that's not required.

I converted the car for 2 reasons: 1. Quality of track time. I'd rather run with 30 big bore cars than 50+ IT cars. 2. I wanted the "ability" to run a National race every once in a while.

------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

[This message has been edited by racer_tim (edited March 08, 2004).]

[Greg Gauper]

Originally posted by racer_tim:
James, the only glass you HAVE TO REMOVE are the door glass. Headlights also if want to consider those "glass".

Tim,

He is racing a Spridget. Per PCS D.9.a.7 (page 27)

Windshield - Open Cars: The windshield and all side rear glass on open cars shall be completely removed.........

I agree on closed cars a.k.a. "Tin Tops" you must remove driver and passenger glass. Rear glass can be replaced to save weight.

But open cars are not as easy to run as dual purpose IT/Prod.

And on ANY prod car, headlights must be removed, per PCS D.9.a.12 (page 29)

[This message has been edited by Greg Gauper (edited March 13, 2004).]

[apr67]

Originally posted by JWiley:
Greg,
Which is more likely to burst into flames, a car with a fuel cell, or one without?

More often than not I would say cars with cells are more likely to burst into flames.

My Miata's tank is wedged right behind my seats, ahead of the rear axle, designed by engieers and tested to be safe. It is attached to a factory fuel system designed and tested to not 'burst into flames'.

So I replace that with bubba's cell in my trunk, 2" from my back bumper and 8 inches from the ground, design my own fuel system with joe's hoses and I have..

A mess.

I'll take the stock tank in most any 1980 or later car over the typical cell install that can be accomplished in a production based racecar (IT, production.)

Alan

[Quickshoe]

When comparing cells to stock tanks, not their placement or quality of installation the cell wins hands down.

Agreed, a stock tank in a Mk1 MR2 is probably safer than hanging a cheap cell in harms way. However, we aren't allowed to utilize cheap rotary molded cells, are we?

The fact that the cell has a bladder and foam greatly reduces its' likelyhood of puncturing and exploding when properly installed.

APR67--while your Miata and my old Mr2 might have had engineers who found a decent place to hang the tank, I imagine they were more concerned about trunk space and interior room in both instances. Those cars are the exception, not the rule. A (custom shaped) cell in the same location will be safer.

[Greg Gauper]

Like others have said, depends on the car.

About 5 years ago, I witnessed an IT RX-7 catch fire in a big way when it spun under braking coming into turn 5 at Road America and backed into the armco. I was working F&C on phones and it scared the hell out of me when it went by in a huge fire ball! Split the stock tank wide open at the seam.

I suspect that in most cases a fuel cell is much safer than a stock tank. Those bladders are pretty strong.

I was concerned about weakening my unibody by cutting a hole in the floor to mount the cell, so I built a 'cage' out of 1.5" angle iron to bolt in from the bottom of the car. The cell sits in the cage and I use straps from the top to hold the cell in place (I couldn't mount my cell flush with the floor so I had to add the cage to keep the cell above the minimum height of 6"). I used the stock location. My cage helps restore some of the stiffness lost from cutting the hole.

happens more than you think.

http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...&cat=500&page=1

[JWiley]

Thanks fot the further input on cells in general. I'm curious as to what the group's take is on my argument concerning the lack of required cells in IT versus the ballistic bladder required in Limited Prep. Should most IT cars without cells be considered death-traps, and should the SCCA be sued for allowing so many racers to be at risk? What exactly is the rationale for allowing any car on the track without a fuel cell? Am I way off base to think I could (and should be allowed to) race safely in Limited Prep with my existing rotary molded cell? Just wondering...

James Wiley
#72 ITC (LP/HP?) Midget

[cherokee]

I think that the reason that IT cars can run the factory tank is the dual nature of IT. They are still street cars (Ya I know most are not). But I think that is where the Glass,lights.....rules come from.

[planet6racing]

My opinion on the matter:

Car fuel tanks are installed with a metal bulkhead between you and the tank. In my case, it is the floor of the car. This nicely keeps the tank and it's gas separate from the passenger compartment and keeps me safe for a period of time in the evnt something goes wrong. Additionally, manufacturers are required to do crash testing to insure that the tank isn't going to pop in a typical street accident. My tank is, essentially, a roto-molded plastic tank with a check valve at the filler nozzle. This makes the stock tank no better than your roto molded tank.

When installing a fuel cell, you will have to cut this factory bulkhead due to SCCA requirements for fuel cell mount (or have a custom cell made). It will be up to you to fabricate a new bulkhead and insure that it is crashworthy. Based on some of the garage engineering I have seen from some folks (the minority, fortunately), I feel that some cars can be a bigger risk with a cell that with the stock tank.

Finally, I don't think you could sue the SCCA over this. Fuel cells are not required but are strongly recommended. It is your choice not to follow their recommendations and it is your choice to put the car on track. Plus, if you sue the SCCA after signing the waiver, it states that you will pay all their legal fees as well as any rewards given in the legal case.

Something to ponder.

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

[eprodrx7]

20+ years of racing I have only once seen a stock tank fall out of a car. This was due to improper instalation and the strap bolt backing off. Same amount of time I have seen two cells fall out due to design failures ie the support structure failing. They do not do well when dragged at 100+ mph

[joeg]

Like many things in racing what was once a production vehicle--I'll not try and second guess a manufacturer. Stock gas tanks are pretty safe if kept in good condition (straps, hoses, no corrosion).

[Tom Donnelly]

Pardon me for this but...

Why would you want to sue the SCCA or any other sanctioning body for that matter?

This is racing. Not fishing.
And it is dangerous no matter what you do.

And you can get hurt. Or killed, or worse.

You should realize that before you get on the track and if you don't, that's scarey.
There is no replay button.

Sorry, I just hate the word "sue".

Tom

[Knestis]

I don't think anyone seriously suggested suing SCCA...

Re: the stock tank question, it's my belief that even the difference between a 20-year-old car and a 10-year-old car is significant, in terms of fuel tank safety.

For this I think we CAN thank the litigation-positive atmosphere here in the USA.

K

[JWiley]

I dislike today's litigious atmosphere as much as anyone, and used the word "sue" in a figurative, not literal way. I agree that nobody forces anyone to race, and that. yes, it can be terminally dangerous ( not that a substantial number of IT-iots currently racing seem to recognize this, but I've ranted about that before). My point was what I consider to be inconsistencies in SCCA rules which frustrate participants, with no real gain in any practical or logical sense. A concerted effort by the SCCA to weed out all the careless/crazy/inconsiderate/irresponsible drivers would do more for safety than a fuel cell in every car!

James Wiley

[Joe Craven]

I installed FIA approved bladder type fuel cell in my 1971 ITB Capri in place of a cheap rotary molded fuel cell. In my opinion, even the good bladder fuel cell is much more dangerous than the 30yo stock gas tank.

The location of the stock tank is much better for safety. Of course, I installed the fuel cell for optimum weight distribution.