Excuse me distracting you all if I missed something; erm, aluminium tube joint to steel fuel tank carcass..? Lots of bolts and an o-ring?
Also, typical road car practice these days for fuel system plumbing, at a high level, is for returnless fuel flow. Connections need to be a bit tougher, too, with ~5 bar output.
Returning fuel flow was previously the more or less universal method; that has the effect of perpetually recirculating fuel between tank and nice warm engine bay (fuel rail bolted to nice warm engine etc) so gradually warms up the tank content. Evaporation emission is then an issue (for a road car) plus there are more joints to go wrong, fuel aeration to handle, hot fuel in low tank level,etc.
Would there be an inescapable driver to return fuel from the engine bay to the tank for this project? Bulk fuel won't be cold for long unless there's loads of it to absorb engine bay heat and dissipate it via tank walls into underfloor air flow but that's warm too, isn't it, from engine outflow and exhaust.
Road cars use nylon fuel lines routed away from the trans tunnel and exhaust, plus heatshielding. Fuel arrives cold at the engine, or at least not warmed up. Nylon can be moulded so shaped to the underfloor, allowing again less joints (as above). Is there perhaps a rule about hard fuel lines required to be metallic? If so copper is easier to bend than steel.
Would you want cold fuel? If so perhaps a returnless fuel cell in a bucket of ice would do cold fuel well. Yes, more fab, more leak opportunity, more of (not my) cost. Its easy for me to speculate about how to spend someone else's money. And there would have to be some ice; the salt pix look like it's a warmish place compared to Blighty so it'd be necessary to take a huge bucket of ice from the hotel..
Or a fuel cooler. Yes, your modern road car has that, too, in at least some cases.
Perhaps this class mandates unmolested fuel tank architecture; if so that kills the above idea anyway.
(Another bit of modern trickery is to use direct injection for fuel delivery instead of port injection; all of the flow past the valve is air, rather than most of it, so there's more air available for burning fuel. There is need for an into-cylinder injector so no context of that for the midget case (even if it was my money!). Cold-engine behaviour is better so unburned fuel emission goes down in EPA tests etc; all good. But you all know that anyway; mile/half-mile etc dirt-track motors (Shaver etc) have been DI for ages)
Just, as they say, my two penn'orth.