Jump to content
MoparBoyy

What happened to your ChampCar today? - 2019

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, MoparBoyy said:

Started stripping all the decals off the mazda.  repaint of the car this weekend and hope the new number plates are ready soon :)

Capture.JPG

Geez, sorry about all those dents :P

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tacked the alu conduit onto drive shaft tunnel, made up a bunch of fuel lines, did the oil cooler lines, spotted and cut the holes through the OEM fuel pump cover plates for the conduit to plumb through.

 

Here's a few shots of the fuel lines, etc.

 

IMG_0884.thumb.jpg.b77e3bce457615854c09be1ddc2a9773.jpg

 

IMG_0881.thumb.jpg.59c85a3251978324e71d626f311458b7.jpg

 

IMG_0883.thumb.jpg.ea645782b137762320f316716d6fd15b.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice choice of lift pumps. Looks like the hi pressure pump

is in the surge tank? And there's a return line from the engine back to the surge?

on previous pictures I was curious about all the line routings but it's much clearer now ( I think, lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mcoppola said:

Nice choice of lift pumps. Looks like the hi pressure pump

is in the surge tank? And there's a return line from the engine back to the surge?

on previous pictures I was curious about all the line routings but it's much clearer now ( I think, lol)

 

Thanks, those pumps are great. about 25% the cost of the OEM in tank pumps, and much easier to service. You can see in that bottom pic I'm using the OEM pump housing with AN fittings brazed on for the pickups in the tank. The OEM returns are capped.

 

The HP pump is in the surge tank, and it has a corse filter on the bottom of it. This fine filter is the one at top.

 

On the surge tank there are three ports. going left to right, 1) the feeds from the lift pumps, 2) the return to the fuel tank, and 3) which isnt populated yet, will be the return from the fuel rail. Couldn't do the lines to/from fuel rail today cause i don't have the AN fittings on fuel rail just yet. Thats the last step for fuel system.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice looking work. Just an FYI we have what looks like the same conduit for the fuel lines in our car and when i asked if this will be acceptable under what is proposed as the future rules for cells and fuel lines i was told it was not acceptable that it had to be 100% liquid tight conduit or have a secondary cover over it....for whatever reason.

 

Hope for your case and mine that’s not the case!

 

Good work! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.topaz-usa.com/liquidtight/top-flex-1-tubing/hf11?returnurl=%2fliquidtight%2ftop-flex-1-tubing%2f

 

the liquid tight conduit has a PVC outer jacket typically.  I wonder if tech would say “that isn’t metal” if you used it.  Even though it is metal inside.   Note that this version is coated inside to make sure you don’t nick things that you pull through it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Racer28173 said:

https://www.topaz-usa.com/liquidtight/top-flex-1-tubing/hf11?returnurl=%2fliquidtight%2ftop-flex-1-tubing%2f

 

the liquid tight conduit has a PVC outer jacket typically.  I wonder if tech would say “that isn’t metal” if you used it.  Even though it is metal inside.   Note that this version is coated inside to make sure you don’t nick things that you pull through it. 

I believe the revised bccr wording will specify metal tubing, as it does already. There ARE some metallic conduits listed on the website that is linked here, but the HF11 product that this link is directed to, is non metallic. I would definitely go with something that is metallic to ensure compliance with the rule.

 

Someone previously mentioned in another topic thread that there are 2 types of Flexible Metal Conduit. One type is constructed of interlocking metal strips and is NOT liquid tight. The 2nd type is actually corrugated tubing, which IS liquid tight. To be safe - safety wise, and rule-wise, I would suggest using the corrugated type of FMT.

Here is some info I found;

Flexible metallic conduit (FMC, informally called greenfield or flex) is made by the helical coiling of a self-interlocked ribbed strip of aluminum or steel, forming a hollow tube through which wires can be pulled.

Flexible metallic tubing (FMT; North America) is not the same as flexible metallic conduit (FMC) which is described in US National Electrical Code (NEC) Article 348. FMT is a raceway, but not a conduit and is described in a separate NEC Article 360. It only comes in 1/2" & 3/4" trade sizes, whereas FMC is sized 1/2" ~ 4" trade sizes. NEC 360.2 describes it as: "A raceway that is circular in cross section, flexible, metallic and liquidtight without a nonmetallic jacket."

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wanted to use the high end composite conduit that's rated to 1800 degrees and sealed. however since it's no metallic a no go. arguably that would be better than the alu conduit i'm running the braided steel through i believe based on both fire management and impact resistance. I posted the vendor catalog earlier and it has the rated values for temp, impact, etc. it's pretty cool material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Racer28173 said:

https://www.topaz-usa.com/liquidtight/top-flex-1-tubing/hf11?returnurl=%2fliquidtight%2ftop-flex-1-tubing%2f

 

the liquid tight conduit has a PVC outer jacket typically.  I wonder if tech would say “that isn’t metal” if you used it.  Even though it is metal inside.   Note that this version is coated inside to make sure you don’t nick things that you pull through it. 

 

No, that link is all PVC constructed no metal involved anywhere in its construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mcoppola said:

I believe the revised bccr wording will specify metal tubing, as it does already. There ARE some metallic conduits listed on the website that is linked here, but the HF11 product that this link is directed to, is non metallic. I would definitely go with something that is metallic to ensure compliance with the rule.

 

Someone previously mentioned in another topic thread that there are 2 types of Flexible Metal Conduit. One type is constructed of interlocking metal strips and is NOT liquid tight. The 2nd type is actually corrugated tubing, which IS liquid tight. To be safe - safety wise, and rule-wise, I would suggest using the corrugated type of FMT.

Here is some info I found;

Flexible metallic conduit (FMC, informally called greenfield or flex) is made by the helical coiling of a self-interlocked ribbed strip of aluminum or steel, forming a hollow tube through which wires can be pulled.

Flexible metallic tubing (FMT; North America) is not the same as flexible metallic conduit (FMC) which is described in US National Electrical Code (NEC) Article 348. FMT is a raceway, but not a conduit and is described in a separate NEC Article 360. It only comes in 1/2" & 3/4" trade sizes, whereas FMC is sized 1/2" ~ 4" trade sizes. NEC 360.2 describes it as: "A raceway that is circular in cross section, flexible, metallic and liquidtight without a nonmetallic jacket."

 

 

That FMT is great and all. But good luck finding it. It’s not exactly cheap on the wallet either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How 'bout two 2X3" mild steel tubes (one for feed and one for return) running longitudinally along the chassis? Attached to the roll cage (for safety of course).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, tommytipover said:

How 'bout two 2X3" mild steel tubes (one for feed and one for return) running longitudinally along the chassis? Attached to the roll cage (for safety of course).

 

The Porsche 917 used part of the frame rail tubing to route oil between the rear mounted engine and the front mounted oil cooler.

 

Is it just me or is this the dumbest rule I have seen in a while? No offense to axte30 on your workmanship but it seems silly to run perfectly good braided steel lines through crappy electrical conduit. You end up with a car that looks like it was designed by H.R. Geiger… and you end up with a fuel line that you have no way of inspecting for leaks until the conduit fills up and fuel comes gushing out.

 

Fortunately I am using a returnless system that only requires a single line between the fuel pump and engine. I guess I will use bulkhead fittings and steel hard line between the fuel bulkhead and the firewall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just have hardlines run under the car?  Can't they just be routed beside the "subframe" like most oems do?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mhr650 said:

Is it just me or is this the dumbest rule I have seen in a while? No offense to axte30 on your workmanship but it seems silly to run perfectly good braided steel lines through crappy electrical conduit. You end up with a car that looks like it was designed by H.R. Geiger… and you end up with a fuel line that you have no way of inspecting for leaks until the conduit fills up and fuel comes gushing out.

 

And here we have the core of the argument. Add an encasement and now we've prevented a failed hose spraying (instead it makes a puddle somewhere) but we've also removed the way to find the failed hose until you have a big puddle of fuel. 

 

 

The big thing I can't seem to get an answer on - what is the end goal here for fuel lines? Are we worried about things being cut in the driver cell during a crash? Are we trying to keep aged out/leaking lines and fittings from spraying fuel? 

 

Bulkhead fuel filters/pumps/cells? Yes, get all that stuff behind an easy to open inspection panel (or engine bay/trunk). But guarding fuel lines (hard, SS or other) from failure requires different approaches depending on what problem you're trying to solve....

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Why not just have hardlines run under the car?  Can't they just be routed beside the "subframe" like most oems do?

 

our issue is the OEM lines are not large enough and run very close to the exhaust which just heats the fuel right up.  the underside of the car is very flat and if we route the lines under the car the fuel lines are now the lowest point of the car (we tried many options)  the only option left would be to run fuel lines down the transmission tunnel.  I watched a GT3 car burn to the ground at sebring when a driveshaft snapped and cut the fuel lines which started a huge fire and the car was written off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

our issue is the OEM lines are not large enough and run very close to the exhaust which just heats the fuel right up.  the underside of the car is very flat and if we route the lines under the car the fuel lines are now the lowest point of the car (we tried many options)  the only option left would be to run fuel lines down the transmission tunnel.  I watched a GT3 car burn to the ground at sebring when a driveshaft snapped and cut the fuel lines which started a huge fire and the car was written off.

Your Stock OEM fuel lines are not big enough for your stock OEM engine? (totally fishing with this question....😉)

 

Why not just replace them with the next size bigger in the same location?

 

Unless you are actually saying that you need more fuel supply becuase of choices your team made, then chose to route the exhaust a certain way and NOW you need to run them inside the car.  If that is the case, I get it.

 

There is NO way I am believing any OEM in the last 20 or so years doesnt have the stock fuel lines fairly well protected.

 

I know what fire you are talking about.  That was a fuel pump and kill switch left on with a full tank of gas (it was even under caution IIRC).  That was CRAZY to see that car go up.  I remember the driver thinking about getting back in to turn the kill switch and (wisely) chose not to!  

Edited by wvumtnbkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

our issue is the OEM lines are not large enough and run very close to the exhaust which just heats the fuel right up.  the underside of the car is very flat and if we route the lines under the car the fuel lines are now the lowest point of the car (we tried many options)  the only option left would be to run fuel lines down the transmission tunnel.  I watched a GT3 car burn to the ground at sebring when a driveshaft snapped and cut the fuel lines which started a huge fire and the car was written off.

 

Where did the factory run your fuel lines?  I debated long and hard about running our through the cabin when I replaced all rusted out factory stuff.  Eventually decided the original location right up next to the quasi-framerails on the unibody was the best.  That route also avoided the exhaust better than anything else I could come up with, too.  Used some new -6 or -8 hardline without any problem.  I could see a cell throwing a wrinkle in things, but with a stock tank it was hard to argue with the factory routing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Your Stock OEM fuel lines are not big enough for your stock OEM engine? (totally fishing with this question....😉)

 

Why not just replace them with the next size bigger in the same location?

 

Unless you are actually saying that you need more fuel supply becuase of choices your team made, then chose to route the exhaust a certain way and NOW you need to run them inside the car.  If that is the case, I get it.

 

There is NO way I am believing any OEM in the last 20 or so years doesnt have the stock fuel lines fairly well protected.

 

I know what fire you are talking about.  That was a fuel pump and kill switch left on with a full tank of gas (it was even under caution IIRC).  That was CRAZY to see that car go up.  I remember the driver thinking about getting back in to turn the kill switch and (wisely) chose not to!  

 

yes, when the output on the fuel pump/surge setup is -8 line, the tiny OEM line is too small.  Why would anyone spend thousands of dollars on a fuel system to then thru 23 year OEM lines?     Did you not read how the factory runs them near the exhaust?   the exhaust is still in the same place as OEM.   I'm pretty sure Ford didn't design the fuel lines with endurance racing in mind.  Our nissan had the same issue with the OEM lines, they are too close to the exhaust and we were overheating the fuel.  The engine is 100% stock, didn't even port or polish it.  Just a stand alone and its was tuned by our competitors.. KSR

 

Saying OEM lines are protected and good enough is like asking why we have to put roll cages in the car because the factory crash tested the car.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

 

Saying OEM lines are protected and good enough is like asking why we have to put roll cages in the car because the factory crash tested the car.

Lol...  wut.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

yes, when the output on the fuel pump/surge setup is -8 line, the tiny OEM line is too small.  Why would anyone spend thousands of dollars on a fuel system.... 

No idea why to tell you the truth.

 

Line size has everything to do with feeding the engine, not the pump output connection size.  Just cause it is big going in, doesn't mean it's not enough fuel for the engine.  The fpr sets the pressure anyway.

 

What I'm trying to say is you have 1 valid point.  Stick to it.  Exhaust is too close on the mustang.  Got it.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Line size has everything to do with feeding the engine, not the pump output connection size.  Just cause it is big going in, doesn't mean it's not enough fuel for the engine.  The fpr sets the pressure anyway.

 

I'm aware of that.  But i'm not going to build a nice fuel system, AN fittings, braided line, then make some crappy adapters to go to metal factory line (for both feed and return) then back to braided line and AN fittings to the fuel rail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still have a few individuals that believe their stock fuel system is better than the safety fuel cells. Trust me when they get hit, and it is inevitable,  and fire is boiling about their car the first thing they will do with the next build is install a proper fuel system that was engineered for what we do. 

 

1 hour ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

yes, when the output on the fuel pump/surge setup is -8 line, the tiny OEM line is too small.  Why would anyone spend thousands of dollars on a fuel system to then thru 23 year OEM lines?     Did you not read how the factory runs them near the exhaust?   the exhaust is still in the same place as OEM.   I'm pretty sure Ford didn't design the fuel lines with endurance racing in mind.  Our nissan had the same issue with the OEM lines, they are too close to the exhaust and we were overheating the fuel.  The engine is 100% stock, didn't even port or polish it.  Just a stand alone and its was tuned by our competitors.. KSR

 

Saying OEM lines are protected and good enough is like asking why we have to put roll cages in the car because the factory crash tested the car.

 

Edited by Cam Benty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mhr650 said:

 

The Porsche 917 used part of the frame rail tubing to route oil between the rear mounted engine and the front mounted oil cooler.

 

Is it just me or is this the dumbest rule I have seen in a while? No offense to axte30 on your workmanship but it seems silly to run perfectly good braided steel lines through crappy electrical conduit. You end up with a car that looks like it was designed by H.R. Geiger… and you end up with a fuel line that you have no way of inspecting for leaks until the conduit fills up and fuel comes gushing out.

 

Fortunately I am using a returnless system that only requires a single line between the fuel pump and engine. I guess I will use bulkhead fittings and steel hard line between the fuel bulkhead and the firewall.

 

no offense taken, I was originally just going to run the braided line. Based on some posts in forum, it seemed prudent to go ahead and run the conduit so I didn't get to an event and get bounced. Retro-ing in all of that conduit in an in-extremis scenario would not be fun.

 

The Geiger ref is a chuckle, hadn't thought of that. Now I have a new mascot for the car! Thanks!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

I'm aware of that.  But i'm not going to build a nice fuel system, AN fittings, braided line, then make some crappy adapters to go to metal factory line (for both feed and return) then back to braided line and AN fittings to the fuel rail.

We did exactly that, works fine for us, but not gonna yuck on someones yum either.  We had issues with stock exhaust super heating our diffs and our fuel cell.  After lots of discussion, we now have an IMSA GTD inspired exhaust system that comes through a custom made firewall pass through, all encased in fire retardant material into a turbo style muffler, mounted in a custom box tight to the passenger side roll cage, and an outlet cut out of the rear of the passenger door.  Fully enclosed and seems to have solved all of our issues, and it is also quieter than the traditional out the rear system we were running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...