Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: 38flattie on July 30, 2011, 01:17:54 PM
-
Somehow, I missed this in the book- Even looking for it, I can't find it, except for the statement" all fuel lines in the area of the clutch and flywheel shall be run through heavy steel tubing or outside the frame rail"
The tech sheet states (3.I) fuel/water/fire. lines, tanks & bottles in flywheel plane require extra shielding.
I have the water chiller lines, and dry sump oil return lines, in the plane, in the drivers compartment.
What is considered suitable extra shielding?
Do I need to worry about the lines in the blower drive plane? I see nothing about that.....
-
Do I need to worry about the lines in the blower drive plane? I see nothing about that.....
Build it for the worst case scenario and like your going to Mars. Depending on where you are on the track it will take some time for the safety crews to reach you. The rule book only lists minimums required. Tony
-
1/8 inch steel minimum shielding in the drivers compartment. For fuel, oil and hot water. You don't want any of that on your fire suit. I would guess any nitrous bottles would need protection and need to be vented overboard, so really shouldn't be in the drivers compartment. I don't have and shielding on my fire bottles. Interesting to hear the official thoughts on this/
-
Thanks guys!
There are no fuel lines in the drivers compartment, and the fuel lines run through heavy tubing in the flywheel plane,
Reading the rule book, I saw no mention of the water and oil lines.
We'll shield the water and oil lines in the drivers compartment. I don't see where the lines in the blower drive plane require anything, but we'll try and address that, as it would be so much safer to do so.
Seems to me, if it's going to be on the tech sheet, it should have been in the rule book.
Of course, I guess I could have read the tech sheet sooner! :-D
-
Thanks guys!
There are no fuel lines in the drivers compartment, and the fuel lines run through heavy tubing in the flywheel plane,
Reading the rule book, I saw no mention of the water and oil lines.
We'll shield the water and oil lines in the drivers compartment. I don't see where the lines in the blower drive plane require anything, but we'll try and address that, as it would be so much safer to do so.
Seems to me, if it's going to be on the tech sheet, it should have been in the rule book.
Of course, I guess I could have read the tech sheet sooner! :-D
Buddy, you are right, this has been brought up at board meetings and is being worked on. It's an evolution...... :-)
Remember, the rule book trumps the tech sheet but it is a good idea to shield any lines that's could be damaged by any type of rotational failure.
-
Thanks Mike- we'll shield them. :cheers:
The tech sheet just caught us a little off gaurd, because we thought we had our bases covered. I'm just happy that we started checking stuff against the tech sheet, and caught it.
-
Hey Guys - Dale here . . . working on the car and a newbie to BVille rules 8-)
a) Water Lines - Intercooler: We have cold water lines going to the intercooler - I don't think I'm going to shield them . . . do you guys think we're cool with that? They are not under pressure and will not be hot - so I don't see an issue, but I'm not the tech inspector.
b) Dry Sump Lines to Tank: We have three #12 dry sump lines going through the firewall - using AN bulkhead fittings. I could build a shield out of 1/8" plate that bolts in and shields the lines OR, I can take everything out that I just put in, put three steel tubes through the firewall and go that route. But - How would you SEAL around a big line that goes through a pipe? I can make the pipes, but have no clue as to how to seal around the #12 lines that go through them.
Opinions on either approach?
c) Fuel Surge Tank - Up Front. The only place we have to mount our front fuel surge tank is behind the water tank in about a 12" area between the tank and the block. It so happens the blower belt/drive will be in part of that area as well. Given this, would we need to shield the surge tank in case of a belt or drive failure?
d) Engine Water Tank - Move to Rear: Given Item 'C' above, would we just be better off moving the whole big ole' water tank to the trunk (which will require a totally new one) - moving the water/weight to the rear and put the fuel/injector surge tank up front in it's place? That seems the most logical, but introduces a LOT of work to build a new tank, route large water lines to the rear, etc, etc..
Thanks for ALL the help and I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible at SpeedWeek and WOS.
-
Hey Guys - Dale here . . . working on the car and a newbie to BVille rules 8-)
d) Engine Water Tank - Move to Rear: Given Item 'C' above, would we just be better off moving the whole big ole' water tank to the trunk (which will require a totally new one) - moving the water/weight to the rear and put the fuel/injector surge tank up front in it's place? That seems the most logical, but introduces a LOT of work to build a new tank, route large water lines to the rear, etc, etc..
Thanks for ALL the help and I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible at SpeedWeek and WOS.
Ok, BoredandStroked and I just spoke on the phone.
The water tank will be moved to the back, like Stan Back has been telling me to do. The surge tank will be moved to the front of the engine, out of the blower drive plane.
Finally, a 1/8" shielding will be installed in the driver's compartment, to shield the dry sump oil lines, and the water chiller lines.
-
Now before everybody goes gaga over this tech sheet stuff, remember first it aint in the rule book so it can't and wont be enforced.
Secondly, think about it. When was the last time a flywheel clutch exploded and penetrated a SFI clutch can on the salt.
If any debris actually penetrated the clutch can does anyone think having thin wall steel tubing is going to offer any better protection than braded hose?
Is this going to be another rule enacted without specifications like the last few such as lateral head restraints, window film/lexan, etal?
If there is going to be a new rule, make it enforcement of SFI legal clutch cans.
I fully expect to have to replace my one year old seat belts next year as a result of the "Danny Thompson" incident and the "new" finding that there are two types of belt material with the same SFI rating but different amount's of stretch. Funny the manufacturer's never mention this to the consumer.
As I have often stated on this site, Safety is and should be First on the list of all competitor's and inspector's lists, but don't arbitrarely come up with and declare "new" rules without researching how to enact them and without thinking thru how any new rule impact's the safety of the driver.
I pray that no driver suffers serious burns trying to egress their vehicle with the new lateral head restaint system. In the future I hope our safety committee becomes a litle more "visionary" and a little less "knee jerk". I appreciate the work they do and am as concerned as the next person about all of us in our hobby. But please, if you want to insert concern's or suggestions, don't put them on the tech sheet, put them in the rule book.
We don't need contraversy in the tech lines........... Bob
-
I don't think you can bank on something that's not in the rule book not being enforced. It can and I have seen it. This is not Law And Order, Wendover. It's the SCTA.
-
I know I am a newbie and have not "earned my stripes" to have many opinions for LSR racing (so forgive me being a bit brash), but it is conversations like this and "grey areas" that make it extremely difficult for a newbie to know what the heck to do? We have a SFI clutch can - which is obviously rated and not just 1/4" material . . . but I have no clue as to whether or not I have/need to put shielding around things like dry-sump lines. It is NOT in the book - and if it is something that can cause us to fail tech (or should be considered a valid safety issue), then it should be in the book. I've been reading the book for over a year - it has been our build bible. But - now that we're a week out of the meet, we decide to be prudent and review the tech inspection sheet - and it does not jive with the book . . . now that makes no sense to me.
We've put lots of time and expensive plumbing into the dry-sump system, I could just as easily have plumbed it a bit different - if I had known I needed to and the book called it out. My only option now is to fear the tech sheet (not the book) and change the system - which I can do, it just adds time/complexity and costs that I wasn't expecting.
The good news is that we're not using the dry-sump system at SW, but will at WOS - so I guess I'll ask all my questions at SW and see if we can get some definitive answers. 8-)
Much appreciate all the input - it DOES help a bunch.
B&S
-
Well I may have stuck my foot in my mouth.
As I re-read page one of the rule book, it seems that race officials have the "right" to change regulations at will.
Given this "act of God", I would encourage us all to jury rig some unknown contraption of unknown specifications or size to cover any and all lines "in the plane of the flywheel" to suit the whim of "whom ever". Bob
-
I know I am a newbie and have not "earned my stripes" to have many opinions for LSR racing (so forgive me being a bit brash), but it is conversations like this and "grey areas" that make it extremely difficult for a newbie to know what the heck to do? We have a SFI clutch can - which is obviously rated and not just 1/4" material . . . but I have no clue as to whether or not I have/need to put shielding around things like dry-sump lines. It is NOT in the book - and if it is something that can cause us to fail tech (or should be considered a valid safety issue), then it should be in the book. I've been reading the book for over a year - it has been our build bible. But - now that we're a week out of the meet, we decide to be prudent and review the tech inspection sheet - and it does not jive with the book . . . now that makes no sense to me.
We've put lots of time and expensive plumbing into the dry-sump system, I could just as easily have plumbed it a bit different - if I had known I needed to and the book called it out. My only option now is to fear the tech sheet (not the book) and change the system - which I can do, it just adds time/complexity and costs that I wasn't expecting.
The good news is that we're not using the dry-sump system at SW, but will at WOS - so I guess I'll ask all my questions at SW and see if we can get some definitive answers. 8-)
Much appreciate all the input - it DOES help a bunch.
B&S
In 2008 and 09 I ran, and saw several other cars with similar, the dry sump tank in the passenger seat area, braided lines as you indicate with bulkhead fittings. Only comment was first year the breather hoses were not fire/melt proof. No comments about sheilding the lines at all. Several different inspectors. Of course as you have seen here, things not always so clear. Most of the time folks are reasonable and as it is not in the rule book nor tech sheet if someone objects, there have been times I have been told, ok this year, fix it next (as long as not obvious flagrant violation. And have had car pass tech for 10 years and then not, no uncertain terms, with no change in the rule that I could tell.
-
And along that line of dry sump tanks and other paraphernalia in the passenger seat area, look at the thread 2 down from this one on Arm restraints where are some pictures and comments about stuff in that area.
-
Bob D....There are 2 different Safety Harness and Seat Belt ratings 16.1 and 16.5 so they do not have the same #. The SCTA rule book states "either" and the 16.5 is in bold print because they are new addition to the SCTA rulebook. To me, it is not up to the manufacturer to tell me but up to me to ask. Mine are in their last year and will be replaced in 2012 also; I too will move to the less stretchable 16.5.............Good Luck
-
Well I may have stuck my foot in my mouth.
As I re-read page one of the rule book, it seems that race officials have the "right" to change regulations at will.
Given this "act of God", I would encourage us all to jury rig some unknown contraption of unknown specifications or size to cover any and all lines "in the plane of the flywheel" to suit the whim of "whom ever". Bob
Yea, we could do that!
....or we could just ask what they want to see, so they feel we will be safe, and then build accordingly. :wink:
-
J.D., thank's for the correction.
It just seems to me that when you call a Safety Manufacturer that if they have a better or "safer" product that they would want to mention it to the customer. I can't imagine that it would be cheaper, but then who knows? Bob
-
Flatee, To the best of my knowledge, neither Kiwi Steve Davies (the chief car inspector) nor Mike Manghelli (car rules committee chairman) post on this site often (if ever) and are either oblivious to the concern's of the racers or (more likely) don't wish to be openly quoted and therefor held responsible for answers given.
I have spoken to Mike in the past and he has been open with advice, but I don't wish to pass along second hand information.
If it wasn't for Dan Warner, who at least has the cajones to give his opinion and knowledge, we would all be in the dark................. :mrgreen: :cheers:
-
Bob,, as usual, your take on the matter is spot on! :cheers:
-
J.D., thank's for the correction.
It just seems to me that when you call a Safety Manufacturer that if they have a better or "safer" product that they would want to mention it to the customer. I can't imagine that it would be cheaper, but then who knows? Bob
Bob, is the main difference between the 16.1 vs the 16.5 Belts the web material? Nylon vs Polyester as Nylon does have more stretch ....
Some Belt MFG's have a Standard Weight and a Heavy Weight Belt system and others have Nylon as Well as Polyester.... Mine are double heavy weight Polyester...
Charles
-
Charles ,who's the manufacturer on the belts you have ,the double heavy duty polyester ones?
Tim
-
Tim, Safety Solutions made mine.. They have since sold to Simpson and you can get either the Simpson Platinum Belts,, or the ones I prefer Safety Solutions Heavy Polyester 7 point belts...
Call Aaron Zentgraf at 800-731-4404
Tell Him Charles Venable told him to HOOK you Up and Hold you in the seat !!
he will know what you mean,,,, go with the forged Cam Buckle too (not latch link)
Charles
-
Flatee, To the best of my knowledge, neither Kiwi Steve Davies (the chief car inspector) nor Mike Manghelli (car rules committee chairman) post on this site often (if ever) and are either oblivious to the concern's of the racers or (more likely) don't wish to be openly quoted and therefor held responsible for answers given.
I have spoken to Mike in the past and he has been open with advice, but I don't wish to pass along second hand information.
If it wasn't for Dan Warner, who at least has the cajones to give his opinion and knowledge, we would all be in the dark................. :mrgreen: :cheers:
I'm a little late on this but I'll speak in Steve and Mike's defense and say that they're not oblivious to racer's concerns and they both stand behind everything they do and say. Saying that they do otherwise is kind of a chicken shit thing to say IMO but that's neither here nor there. The SCTA has not, does not, and probably will not use these forums to hold official communications (regarding rules and such) with competitors. That's stuff that should be handled directly with the appropriate party via email or phone call or in person or at a board meeting or whatever. Sure these forums are great and I try to have a presence here and answer questions when I can but you're talking about two SCTA officials. Use the appropriate means of communication and I'm sure you'll find what you seek.
Anyways, doesn't really matter either way because I think we have a simple solution to a very small problem. Flattie is most likely (definitely) looking at an old inspection sheet. Check the year that's printed on the form. The rule used to state that all oil/fuel/water lines be shielded but it was changed back to fuel only and so was the inspection form. I verified this for myself today on a current 2011 inspection form; it says FUEL LINES only.
-
Nathan
Thanks for taking the time to clear up the line shielding issue for us.
Ed