Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: QikNip on April 05, 2015, 09:38:39 AM
-
I posted this topic in General Chat before I realized that it should have been here. :oops: While it was in GC, I recieved a very doable suggestion on the second question that I use a 1/4" steel plate shield bolted over the fuel line in the clutch area (in leiu of the "heavy steel tubing" referenced in 3.1). My question is whether I need to submit that option to Steve Davies for approval before I fabricate the shield.
Rick
As the build of my Porsche 924 G Classic Production build moves closer to the end, I have a few questions with respect to the rule book that I need help intrepreting. Hopefully the folks here can clarify them for me. huh
Rule 3.1.1 appears to require that cars, with other than a fully stock fuel system, have a mechanical ball type fuel shut off valve, as well as an electrical switch to dissable the electric fuel pump ... and that both be within the driver's reach. Is that correct? And if so, how do folks install a mechanical ball valve that can be actuated by the driver and avoid running afoul of 3.1 which states that no part of the fuel system can be in the driver's compartment?
Rule 3.1 states that all fuel lines in the area of the clutch and flywheel must be run through heavy steel tubing, or be routed outside the frame rail. In my case there is no frame rail to hide behind and the existing 3/8" steel line has three pretty significant bends in the plane of the flywheel/clutch, making the sliding a steel tube over it virtually impossible. Has anyone used a braided steel hose slipped over the fuel line to satisfy this requirement? (I have to think I'm not the first builder with this issue)
I've retained the inertial switch from the stock wiring and have the cut off switch installed, but these two issues have me stopped for the moment.
Rick
-
It is best to get some sort of ruling from the "horses mouth" ( Kiwi Steve or Lee Kennedy) I think the heavy plate as suggested will be ok. Fuel pump shut off rules, as I understand having been here long enough to experience both forms, comes from the past where generally fuel pumps were mechanical and they wanted some way for the fuel supply to be cut off incase the engine was running and fuel system was not intact or otherwise leaking- ie you were upside down. Electric fuel pumps became more popular and a twist key ignition switch as with stock systems was deemed a bit awkward and so they wanted something easier to shut stuff off- a simple toggle switch to cut the pump within easy drivers reach. Then again, upside down and maybe you not totally with it, the electric pump issue arose again and the inertial switch shut off was mandated. Point being, someway to stop the fuel flow in case of emergency. It was my understanding- see horses mouth above- that both mechanical and electric shut offs were not required but only the one appropriate for the system, they just wanted it shut off. It is possible I misunderstood but I think this is correct. At no point in inspection of my cars recently ( have had a total of 4, all with EFI and electric pumps) have both electric and mechanical shut offs been required.
-
Rick,
While common sense here should apply, sometimes things are overlooked by focusing on too minute detail.
Since you are a fair ways from Kennedy and Davies, your comfort level should be un-easy.
You can contact them, in the rulebook listings, send pictures, diagrams and such.
When you have a "go nod", print and or bring documentation in the LOG book for the car.
The inspectors will question something out of the ordinary, having an endorsement eases the situation.
If something is found questionable, Steve and Lee are around at the events to approve or dis-approve.
Believe it or not, they are there to make sure you can run safely, not just to send you home.
Remember this, the rulebook (safety portion) is a MINIMUM guide line for construction of YOUR vehicle.
The Inspectors are just looking for this, Record Certification is looking for compliance within the Class/Type vehicle.
John
-
Thanks guys. I'll call Lee Kennedy later today to review the shield solution.
Rick
-
Qiky, you've committed the ultimate forum sin and have double posted the same thread in two different places. You shall be tied over a barrel and caned. Or we'll treat you like this horse here: :dhorse:
-
Ahh, but Nathan, do I get easy treatment for openly acknowledging that gervious sin in my post here? :roll:
Rick
-
No, Rick -- you get punished more for misspelling grievous. :evil: :evil:
-
I think "gervious" is relating to a threatening dog -- watch out!
-
:oops: Where's spell check when you need it!