For today's silly question...

I'm going to be towering the rear of the car in order to fit some appropriate coilovers. As you can see the factory fuel tank in the Mini straddles the existing wheelwell/shock tower and an expanded tower and/or cage bars will impinge on the factory tank's current location.

Now, if I move the factory tank a few inches towards the car's centerline and connect an external filler kit similar to that shown below I can make everything fit neatly using the stock tank and also get a recessed filler I don't have to worry about getting ripped off by an errant tree branch.

As I read the rules (below) there's nothing stopping me from sliding the stock tank over a couple of inches -- thoughts?


CARS fuel tank rules...


11. Fuel, fuel tanks and lines. |
(a) Only unleaded fuels are allowed. Leaded fuel and lead additives are expressly prohibited. |
(b)(a) A fuel-resistant and fire-retardant plate or shield is required between the passenger |
compartment and the compartment or area in which the fuel tank is located.
(c)(b) The original fuel tank may only be replaced by an FIA- or SFI- approved fuel cell provided |
that:
(i) The original fuel tank is removed.
(ii) The fuel cell is properly vented to outside the vehicle from the compartment in which
it is located.
(iii) The original fuel filler opening is sealed, if not used for the fuel cell.
(iv) Should the fuel cell and its filler be located in the luggage compartment, an outlet
must be provided for fuel spilled in the compartment.
(v) Where fuel cells are installed in the passenger compartment of vehicles such as
"hatchback" variants, NRR II.C.11(a) above applies if the fuel cell filler is located in the
passenger compartment.
(d)(c) Supplementary fuel tanks are not permitted. |
If fuel lines are re-routed through the passenger compartment, they shall be in compliance with
the following:
(i) Shall incorporate a metallic casing. (If the metallic casing is not exterior to the line,
a verifiable sample must be presented at scrutineering.)
(ii) Shall have a minimum of 200 psi rating. If fuel lines are routed through the passenger
compartment by the manufacturer, it is recommended that they be in compliance with
this section.
(e)(d) Fuel pumps shall be isolated from the driver/co-driver by a fireproof metal bulkhead.

---

Pure mathematics is the enemy of every truly creative man -- Sir Alec

Hard to say, but the CARS rule says the original fuel tank may only replaced by a fuel cell etc... so that may be considerd that nothing else can be done with the fuel tank?? That setup likely won't pass muster in the states if noticed, CARS approval or not.

Liability wise the original tank in the original location was approved by some engineer and a version of DOT. When moved or modified then the approval and associated becomes the scrutineer or sanctioning body.

So you need to check with a CARS scrutineer to get their blessing.

Hmmn, I'll run it past Rob with my next batch of inane questions...

Thanks Gene.

Cheers, Ted

---

Pure mathematics is the enemy of every truly creative man -- Sir Alec

heymagic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hard to say, but the CARS rule says the original
> fuel tank may only replaced by a fuel cell etc...
> so that may be considerd that nothing else can be
> done with the fuel tank?? That setup likely won't
> pass muster in the states if noticed, CARS
> approval or not.
>
> Liability wise the original tank in the original
> location was approved by some engineer and a
> version of DOT. When moved or modified then the
> approval and associated becomes the scrutineer or
> sanctioning body.
>
> So you need to check with a CARS scrutineer to get
> their blessing.

Really? When did they change that rule? I dunno about CARS but last I remembered at least in the SCCA days you could move the stock tank to the trunk or wherever provided it was totally sealed off from the cockpit and properly plumbed, etc. Much safer than having it drag underneath the car and get destroyed by rocks. In John Lane's Volvo, for example, we moved the tank from behind the rear axle to inside the trunk above the rear axle, well insulated from damage. After 5 or 6 rolls (lost count) it's never taken any damage or spilled a drop. I can't imagine how many times it would have needed to be replaced if it had remained in the stock location, even with a skidplate for it. I wouldn't think moving the Mini tank a few inches to the center of the car would be a big deal. They are right up against the body as it is so moving it away would be a good thing if you whacked into a tree right there or something.

5.7. FUEL CONTAINERS
A. No fuel other than that carried in the OE fuel tank or FIA FT-3 or higher
fuel cell bladder shall be carried in any vehicle.
For any fuel cell located inside the car (e.g., the passenger compartment
or trunk), a fireproof and liquid-proof case must surround the fuel cell and
its filler. A fireproof and liquid-proof bulkhead may be used separate the
cockpit from the fuel cell in place of the fireproof and liquid-proof case.
The filler cap and filler pipe or hose is considered part of the fuel cell and
must also be separated from the cockpit by the case or bulkhead.
Original equipment fuel tank must only be used in their OE positions, and
must be separated from the cockpit by the floorpan or a metal bulkhead.
All fuel tanks must be securely mounted to the primary structure of the
vehicle. Any fuel tank or cell exposed on the bottom of the vehicle shall
be equipped with a stone shield designed to prevent puncture or damage
from flying stones and road debris. FIA FT-3 or higher approved fuel
cells are recommended......

Please note the OEM tank in the OE location midway thru the rule. John should have a fuel cell in the trunk.

Interesting, the rule kind of counterdicts itself-

A. No fuel other than that carried in the OE fuel tank or FIA FT-3 or higher
fuel cell bladder

Then it says

FIA FT-3 or higher approved fuel cells are recommended

---

-Jason

mack73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting, the rule kind of counterdicts itself-
>
>
> A. No fuel other than that carried in the OE
> fuel tank or FIA FT-3 or higher
> fuel cell bladder
>
> Then it says
>
> FIA FT-3 or higher approved fuel cells are
> recommended
>
> 94 Golf
> www.Mack73.com
I didn't copy the whole rule to the post but I'm not sure what you see as a contradiction..

Haha not sure what I was thinking Gene.

For some reason I was reading it as - You must use a FIA FT-3 or higher cell. Then later it says a FIA FT-3 or higher is recommended. Meaning that you could use a less than FT-3 certified cell.

But obviously it reads, you should use a cell over the OE tank

---

-Jason

heymagic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 5.7. FUEL CONTAINERS
> A. No fuel other than that carried in the OE fuel
> tank or FIA FT-3 or higher
> fuel cell bladder shall be carried in any
> vehicle.
> For any fuel cell located inside the car (e.g.,
> the passenger compartment
> or trunk), a fireproof and liquid-proof case must
> surround the fuel cell and
> its filler. A fireproof and liquid-proof bulkhead
> may be used separate the
> cockpit from the fuel cell in place of the
> fireproof and liquid-proof case.
> The filler cap and filler pipe or hose is
> considered part of the fuel cell and
> must also be separated from the cockpit by the
> case or bulkhead.
> Original equipment fuel tank must only be used in
> their OE positions, and
> must be separated from the cockpit by the floorpan
> or a metal bulkhead.
> All fuel tanks must be securely mounted to the
> primary structure of the
> vehicle. Any fuel tank or cell exposed on the
> bottom of the vehicle shall
> be equipped with a stone shield designed to
> prevent puncture or damage
> from flying stones and road debris. FIA FT-3 or
> higher approved fuel
> cells are recommended......
>
> Please note the OEM tank in the OE location midway
> thru the rule. John should have a fuel cell in
> the trunk.


When did they add that into the rule? Makes no sense. It would be way more unsafe in the stock location than where it is now. But it's OK for my Opel to have the stock gas tank in the exact same location because it's stock but in John's car it's somehow terribly dangerous because that's not the original location? That makes no sense. Another poorly thought out rule.

Doivi Clarkinen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> When did they add that into the rule? Makes no
> sense. It would be way more unsafe in the stock
> location than where it is now. But it's OK for my
> Opel to have the stock gas tank in the exact same
> location because it's stock but in John's car it's
> somehow terribly dangerous because that's not the
> original location? That makes no sense. Another
> poorly thought out rule.
>


I understand the logic in drafting such a rule. Essentially they're saying "we recommend an FIA FT3 or higher rated cell" -- should things go pear shaped and you immolate yourself, please refer all legal inquiries to the FIA. Failing that, the auto manufacturer, and all the relevant regulating bodies, have deemed the stock tank in the stock location to be safe -- if they are incorrect please sue them, not us.

If you look carefully at the rule books, most rules are traceable back to "someone else's" standards. This makes a lot of sense as the "someone else" probably invested a great deal of engineering resources into the project and there will undoubtedly be a great stonking stack of paper to backup their decision should they ever be required to.

It's occasionally inconvenient for the "little people" but quite reasonable in the aggregate. It's better in many ways, can you imagine if there were separate RA, NASA, CARS, SCCA, et al standards for cells, belts, seats, etc?

I'm quite pleased that most of the sanctioning bodies have moved towards common standards for things like cages and whatnot, it would really suck to have a "legal in one series" car get excluded at tech after you've expended the dough for towing, hotels, vacation time, etc.

That said, I'll still ask my scrutineer, I am after all still cheap and lazy, either of which trump logical

Cheers, Ted

---

Pure mathematics is the enemy of every truly creative man -- Sir Alec

Ted Andkilde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doivi Clarkinen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > When did they add that into the rule? Makes
> no
> > sense. It would be way more unsafe in the
> stock
> > location than where it is now. But it's OK
> for my
> > Opel to have the stock gas tank in the exact
> same
> > location because it's stock but in John's car
> it's
> > somehow terribly dangerous because that's not
> the
> > original location? That makes no sense.
> Another
> > poorly thought out rule.
> >
>
>
> I understand the logic in drafting such a rule.
> Essentially they're saying "we recommend an FIA
> FT3 or higher rated cell" -- should things go pear
> shaped and you immolate yourself, please refer all
> legal inquiries to the FIA. Failing that, the auto
> manufacturer, and all the relevant regulating
> bodies, have deemed the stock tank in the stock
> location to be safe -- if they are incorrect
> please sue them, not us.
>
> If you look carefully at the rule books, most
> rules are traceable back to "someone else's"
> standards. This makes a lot of sense as the
> "someone else" probably invested a great deal of
> engineering resources into the project and there
> will undoubtedly be a great stonking stack of
> paper to backup their decision should they ever be
> required to.
>
> It's occasionally inconvenient for the "little
> people" but quite reasonable in the aggregate.
> It's better in many ways, can you imagine if there
> were separate RA, NASA, CARS, SCCA, et al
> standards for cells, belts, seats, etc?
>
> I'm quite pleased that most of the sanctioning
> bodies have moved towards common standards for
> things like cages and whatnot, it would really
> suck to have a "legal in one series" car get
> excluded at tech after you've expended the dough
> for towing, hotels, vacation time, etc.
>
> That said, I'll still ask my scrutineer, I am
> after all still cheap and lazy, either of which
> trump logical
>
> Cheers, Ted
>
>
>
> Pure mathematics is the enemy of every truly
> creative man -- Sir Alec


Ted you have seen the light !! Thanks for taking the (small) time it took to think that thru.
Is Rob Metcalf your scrutineer ?

While there have been a couple notable fuel tank goofs (Pinto and Chevy pick-ups) the stock factory location has been designed, engineered and approved by many different people and organizations. I think mid 80s Audi was probably the last car to have a trunk mounted gas tank, why is that ?? I actually split the seams on my 510 during a roll with hardly any damage to the car. It competed the next day.

I certainly don't want to watch my house and retirement go away because someone poorly installed a fuel tank in the wrong location.

heymagic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ted Andkilde Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doivi Clarkinen Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > When did they add that into the rule?
> Makes
> > no
> > > sense. It would be way more unsafe in
> the
> > stock
> > > location than where it is now. But it's
> OK
> > for my
> > > Opel to have the stock gas tank in the
> exact
> > same
> > > location because it's stock but in
> John's car
> > it's
> > > somehow terribly dangerous because
> that's not
> > the
> > > original location? That makes no sense.
>
> > Another
> > > poorly thought out rule.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I understand the logic in drafting such a
> rule.
> > Essentially they're saying "we recommend an
> FIA
> > FT3 or higher rated cell" -- should things go
> pear
> > shaped and you immolate yourself, please
> refer all
> > legal inquiries to the FIA. Failing that, the
> auto
> > manufacturer, and all the relevant
> regulating
> > bodies, have deemed the stock tank in the
> stock
> > location to be safe -- if they are incorrect
> > please sue them, not us.
> >
> > If you look carefully at the rule books,
> most
> > rules are traceable back to "someone else's"
> > standards. This makes a lot of sense as the
> > "someone else" probably invested a great deal
> of
> > engineering resources into the project and
> there
> > will undoubtedly be a great stonking stack
> of
> > paper to backup their decision should they
> ever be
> > required to.
> >
> > It's occasionally inconvenient for the
> "little
> > people" but quite reasonable in the
> aggregate.
> > It's better in many ways, can you imagine if
> there
> > were separate RA, NASA, CARS, SCCA, et al
> > standards for cells, belts, seats, etc?
> >
> > I'm quite pleased that most of the
> sanctioning
> > bodies have moved towards common standards
> for
> > things like cages and whatnot, it would
> really
> > suck to have a "legal in one series" car get
> > excluded at tech after you've expended the
> dough
> > for towing, hotels, vacation time, etc.
> >
> > That said, I'll still ask my scrutineer, I
> am
> > after all still cheap and lazy, either of
> which
> > trump logical
> >
> > Cheers, Ted
> >
> >
> >
> > Pure mathematics is the enemy of every truly
> > creative man -- Sir Alec
>
>
> Ted you have seen the light !! Thanks for taking
> the (small) time it took to think that thru.
> Is Rob Metcalf your scrutineer ?
>
> While there have been a couple notable fuel tank
> goofs (Pinto and Chevy pick-ups) the stock factory
> location has been designed, engineered and
> approved by many different people and
> organizations. I think mid 80s Audi was probably
> the last car to have a trunk mounted gas tank, why
> is that ?? I actually split the seams on my 510
> during a roll with hardly any damage to the car.
> It competed the next day.
>

Yeah, I wasn't looking at it from the litigation standpoint but since you put it that way it all makes sense. Rules these days are written to try to keep the sanctioning body from being sued, not so much for what is actually safer or more logical.



> I certainly don't want to watch my house and
> retirement go away because someone poorly
> installed a fuel tank in the wrong location.
>

Well then as a scrutineer shouldn't you have caught that in a log book or tech inspection and not let them compete until it was fixed properly? Just sayin'...

But will you grandfather in old designs? Or with a fuel cell/tank, is it considered like a helmet being out of date and MUST be renewed?

---

Welcome to the cult of JVL drink the koolaid or be banned.

Technically there is no grandfather clauses. We allow some earlier stuff to continue to compete do to the expense of re-engineering things. That is why we still except the SCCA 2004 cages as Appendix 1. You can't build to that now, but they still compete. Currently the FIA seat expiration and fuel cell bladder is not seeing intense scrutiny, not saying it won't ever though. Above all else a car has to be deemed safe more than compliant.

Doivi Clarkinen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, I wasn't looking at it from the litigation
> standpoint but since you put it that way it all
> makes sense. Rules these days are written in one of the Private Corporations sanctioning rallies in USA to try
> to keep the Corporation from being sued and the private fortune of one person from being plundered, not
> so much for what is actually safer or more
> logical.


Uh, fixed.
>>
>
>
>

> Well then as a scrutineer shouldn't you have
> caught that in a log book or tech inspection and
> not let them compete until it was fixed properly?
> Just sayin'...
>
Say no more, SAY NO MORE!!!!

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.