New Rules are up

#21

leggwork wrote:

[quote]I’ve never heard of someone wanting to disconnect the front sway bar. The rear bar is often disconnected in slippery conditions.
[/quote]

Bruce -

I’m no expert, but my understanding (and experience) is that softening only one end of the car effectively stiffens the other. At MidOhio I had pretty good success in the rain sessions with disconnecting both bars. If you only disconnect the rear, wouldn’t you understeer worse than if you had left the rear bar connected as soft as possible?

Steve D.

#22

Steve D wrote:

[quote]leggwork wrote:

[quote]I’ve never heard of someone wanting to disconnect the front sway bar. The rear bar is often disconnected in slippery conditions.
[/quote]

Bruce -

I’m no expert, but my understanding (and experience) is that softening only one end of the car effectively stiffens the other. At MidOhio I had pretty good success in the rain sessions with disconnecting both bars. If you only disconnect the rear, wouldn’t you understeer worse than if you had left the rear bar connected as soft as possible?

Steve D.[/quote]

IMHO:
These “race” cars aren’t exactly stiff to begin with…but:
These cars are extremely tail happy in the wet with both bars connected. Ive only disconnected the rear for wet driving and it worked great for me as well as others. Interesting point about the front bar though. I did not experience a lot of understeer with this setup. turn in was still good and the car is still easily rotated with throttle in the rain to compensate.

maybe your gearing made too much mid corner torque and produced understeer? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: (Sorry, I couldnt resist)

#23

This video was posted on another website. It made me realize just how dangerous a fuel cell placed in the wrong spot can be. I can only imagine what might have happened to me at Road Atlanta last February if I had a fuel cell mounted where my spare tire is normally mounted. The BMW is designed to have a spare tire in the well as part of the crush zone. Are we compromising safety for convenience?

Apologies to anyone offended. Not trying to open a can of worms.

#24

I might be misinterpreting your post, but just to note that I don’t see anything in our rules that specifies a well-cell. I would say that one in the place of the stock tank is allowed.

[quote]
8.14. Fuel Cells
8.14.1. Fuel cells are permitted.
8.14.2. If a fuel cell is installed the original fuel tank shall be removed.[/quote]

I can’t believe that worker left the burned driver alone and chose to go back to his fire extinguisher …
thanks,
bruce

Gasman wrote:

[quote]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1h79d_crash-ferrari-f355_auto

This video was posted on another website. It made me realize just how dangerous a fuel cell placed in the wrong spot can be. I can only imagine what might have happened to me at Road Atlanta last February if I had a fuel cell mounted where my spare tire is normally mounted. The BMW is designed to have a spare tire in the well as part of the crush zone. Are we compromising safety for convenience?

Apologies to anyone offended. Not trying to open a can of worms.[/quote]

#25

leggwork wrote:

[quote]I might be misinterpreting your post, but just to note that I don’t see anything in our rules that specifies a well-cell. I would say that one in the place of the stock tank is allowed.

[quote]
8.14. Fuel Cells
8.14.1. Fuel cells are permitted.
8.14.2. If a fuel cell is installed the original fuel tank shall be removed.[/quote]

I can’t believe that worker left the burned driver alone and chose to go back to his fire extinguisher …
thanks,
bruce

Gasman wrote:

[quote]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1h79d_crash-ferrari-f355_auto

This video was posted on another website. It made me realize just how dangerous a fuel cell placed in the wrong spot can be. I can only imagine what might have happened to me at Road Atlanta last February if I had a fuel cell mounted where my spare tire is normally mounted. The BMW is designed to have a spare tire in the well as part of the crush zone. Are we compromising safety for convenience?

Apologies to anyone offended. Not trying to open a can of worms.[/quote][/quote]

Wow.

I thought fuel cells reduced the risk of that sort of thing because they had an internal bladder. The bladder should mean less gas vapor and another layer to prevent leakage. At least that’s how I thought they were supposed to work.

The video looked like gas vapor exploded and then gas sprayed, all over the passenger compartment. And maybe continued to drain into the passenger compartment fueling the flame. The gas certainly didn’t seem to be primarily leaking away on to the track.

#26

Since I’m the only one (that I’m aware of) with a fuel cell, or well cell I’ll chime in.

No idea on how it compares safety-wise to the stock tank. I’m guessing equal to or better since when I walk around just about any pro or amateur paddock people seem to have put them in the trunk as a standard location.

With that said, my setup certainly could be made safer. I did a half a$$ job on the bulkhead that is needed to keep any fuel from entering the passenger area. I’d also feel better if it were a legit cell vs. sitting in the spare tire and having it moved more closely to the rear axle.

My plan is to address these hopefully in the next few months. Since I was breaking new ground with this I wanted to make sure that a) it would solve my starvation problems (which it did) and b) that it wouldn’t suddenly be declared illegal or whatever after I cut a big hole in my trunk and had a cell mounted professionally. I feel on safer ground now and the next step is to get rid of the well cell and put something in correctly.

In terms of seeing cars explode and dudes extra crispy I comfort myself at night by thinking about how slow our cars are and reminding myself not to crash! :unsure:

#27

Jimmy, thank you for not being offended. Yep, I was indeed thinking of you and another one in our series. I love you like a brother and would hate to see you or anyone else that I care about hurt. Again, the BMW wheel well is designed to have a tire inflated with air in it as part of the crush zone. Without this component, the ass end of our cars is very vulnerable. Put explosives in there and it is worse. I’ve had this on my mind for some time and would be remiss not mentioning it as we address rule changes. Again, thank you for not being offended.

#28

remember that the CCR has multiple rules on fuel cells.
BTW, there is a new version of the CCR posted - not too much exciting there though.
cheers,
bruce

IndyJim wrote:

[quote]Since I’m the only one (that I’m aware of) with a fuel cell, or well cell I’ll chime in.

No idea on how it compares safety-wise to the stock tank. I’m guessing equal to or better since when I walk around just about any pro or amateur paddock people seem to have put them in the trunk as a standard location.

With that said, my setup certainly could be made safer. I did a half a$$ job on the bulkhead that is needed to keep any fuel from entering the passenger area. I’d also feel better if it were a legit cell vs. sitting in the spare tire and having it moved more closely to the rear axle.

My plan is to address these hopefully in the next few months. Since I was breaking new ground with this I wanted to make sure that a) it would solve my starvation problems (which it did) and b) that it wouldn’t suddenly be declared illegal or whatever after I cut a big hole in my trunk and had a cell mounted professionally. I feel on safer ground now and the next step is to get rid of the well cell and put something in correctly.

In terms of seeing cars explode and dudes extra crispy I comfort myself at night by thinking about how slow our cars are and reminding myself not to crash! :unsure:[/quote]

#29

I’ve seen that scary vid before but it still gives me chills. Is the Ferrari cell up front like the Porsche’s? Seems that would be even less safe - having the fuel load in the front where it could be impacted.

I was thinking about adding a cell for safety reasons and talked to a car builder and he strongly suggested keeping the stock fuel tank. From his experience he said he has seen stock tanks take a heckuva beating and survive, and also in the e30 it puts it a little more out of harm’s way. Plus the weight’s in a better place.

Just one person’s experience. I’m no expert but that’s why I’ve stayed with the tank. I’m not sure what the safest fuel setup would be, but seems like it would be more closer to the bulkhead behind the passenger seat, reinforced, and sealed from the passenger compartment.

#30

could be wrong, but I think in the first hit, the Porsche lost it’s front hood and fender, then the Ferrari hit the Porsche’s tank and the gas showered everywhere. Looks like it was on a warmup lap so likely had a full fuel load

just found this additional info on it …

bruce

#31

Thanks for the Wiki link that explains the rest of the story.

Wow, 90 sec engulfed in flames and it was another driver that put the fire out.

#32

Quick clarification question - the new rules state:

9.3.5.3.2. Heater water control valve(s) may be added or replaced.
9.3.5.3.3. Heater core and hoses may be removed.

I read in BF.c that it’s a fair PITA to remove the core - either remove the dash or the steering column. There’s one post on there where a guy just cut the box to remove the core. I’m thinking I’d like to to just trim that sucker off (the heater box), remove the core, the valve and hoses as an assembly and just leave it. Why do we need an intact box if we have no core or valve.

Appreciate additional thoughts or clarifications.

#33

the writeup here looks pretty straightforward

http://www.e30tech.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48569

edit…
from the posts on page 3 of this thread, it looks like more of a challenge on the earlier cars

I can’t imagine anyone protesting you for having a cut-up heater core box, just don’t get carried away with unnecessary mods.
cheers,
bruce

Age wrote:

[quote]Quick clarification question - the new rules state:

9.3.5.3.2. Heater water control valve(s) may be added or replaced.
9.3.5.3.3. Heater core and hoses may be removed.

I read in BF.c that it’s a fair PITA to remove the core - either remove the dash or the steering column. There’s one post on there where a guy just cut the box to remove the core. I’m thinking I’d like to to just trim that sucker off (the heater box), remove the core, the valve and hoses as an assembly and just leave it. Why do we need an intact box if we have no core or valve.

Appreciate additional thoughts or clarifications.[/quote]

#34

Why bother… You can block off the heater hoses (don’t loop them) to eliminate the heater core as a point of failure. There isn’t much weight in the core, valve, etc. That said, there’s some advantage to having a working defroster. A rag on a stick doesn’t cut it in cold rainy weather…

#35

Thanks guys. It’s not my intent to overdo this, but also don’t want to be on the ragged edge of the rules because I cut the box to get my core out. From what I read earlier there is a difference in the designs of the early and later cars and dropping the steering column to get the core out is still possible.

I’m doing this now because I have the interior gutted for paint anyway so the timing is good, plus it’s just dead weight and there is likely some water in there - just cleaner to remove it. I see the point about the defroster but it already doesn’t work since the heater hoses are disconnected. I guess I can just have fan-blown air on the inside of the windshield combined with a fog-x treatment will have to suffice.

#36

Eventually, you will wish you had a defroster. I promise.

#37

Defroster, BIG YES

Cell in an e30 well…uh nope. I talked to an ATL cell engineer years ago about an e30 cell, he said to engineer a cell that was safer than the stock tanks the cost would be over $2k each back then. The installation of any cell, not just a well cell, so much depends on details and the experience of the installer.

Jim, sell you cell to a vintage guy and buy a new stock tank and pump (s)

Al

#38

Yeah I hear you. I had a new tank, new pumps, etc.

I sunk $3k into chasing the stupid starvation issues I had (basically rebuilt the entire fuel system) and still could only run about 4 gallons or so out of the tank before it started up again. And this was after it was ‘fixed’.

My choice was start with a different car, or try the well cell.

As with a lot of this safety stuff - I’ll say this. Few years ago my wife and I were watching TV, and a news commercial came on - “SHOCKING NEWS AT 11 WHAT YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST KNOW ABOUT CELL PHONES AND GAS STATIONS AND HOW YOUR LIFE IS AT RISK”.

My wife said “Oh my God what could this be”, show finishes newscaster talks about how if you use a cell phone while filling up you will instantly explode.

My wife again concerned. I say “How many gas stations do you pass each day? 20? 30? 50?” “How many IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE have you seen on fire?” “Heard about on fire?”

None. Me too. I guess it isn’t that shocking or important after all.

That isn’t to say it can’t happen, or won’t happen or one is safer than the other. I just think that pro cars run cells, the FIA approves cells, and while it isn’t apples to apples. I’ve never seen a car burst into flames during our races, and very few anymore even in pro races.

Now I fully acknowledge the half a$$ery of my installation and look to put a better cell in hopefully before next season. I’ll have BimmerWorld do it since my guess is they’ve put a few in to higher standards than mine. Just trying to keep it all in perspective.

Of course if Al is afraid that is probably a pretty good canary in the coalmine…

#39

IndyJim wrote:

Every time this past year that my car sputtered I thought fondly of your fuel cell.

#40

Jim, The problem is not with the cell so much as where the cell is located. BMW’s are designed to have crush zones that give way to save the driver. The spare tire wheel well needs a tire in it to do what it is designed to do should an accident occur. Forgive me for raising this issue, I only did so because of my accident which wiped out the back of my car.