Jump to content

2022 BCCR


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Bandit said:

I think the big issue here is that the filler necks have been unregulated, beyond diameter, since the beginning. And now a revision comes out, with zero prior discussion, that will effect a large percentage of competitors. Including those that have cells yet do NOT have oversize fuel fills. They are also losing capacity.

Wrong, i know jay and ray have been discussing the filler neck issue for a long time. 

 

i will admit this was likely not the best way to "solve" the filler neck dilemma but can you honestly say the teams that picked a car knowing it was fuel limited would have purchased a cell regardless?  Is safety of our participants above all else the most important aspect here?

Edited by Hurljohn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bandit said:

I'm just eyeballing a 1979 Delta 88 with a 27 gallon (at 60 degrees) tank.

 my car as a teenager was a 1978 Delta 88 Royale (brown on brown).  So many fun memories in that car

Edited by QuaTTro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Snorman said:

There is no saving grace here. 

Last year they wanted to bump our VPI. This year, they're taking fuel away. 

We were quite frankly, perfectly fine with the 3' filler neck limitation that was petitioned. What the ignorant don't know is that we only get fuel into a few more inches of filler than that due to the orientation of our filler. But that didn't pass and we really saw no reason to change anything. 

But this is now on a whole other level and it's pretty clear which cars get royally screwed and which cars don't. 

I think you would have a good petition argument for vpi reduction...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gkuhn41 said:

I like the idea of limiting fill necks 100% on board with that. Our fill neck holds .3 gallons so not a big deal.

 

What I dont like is stating your fill neck is now part of the cell. So now in order to carry the full amount allowed by the rules you need to pack the filler neck with unsecured fuel and everyone will be doing it. The exact thing we were told multiple times Champcar was trying to get away from, they just made a rule to encourage it.

 

We have an overflow attached to our car. We used it to drain the fill neck all but a handful of times over the last 3 years.

Yep!  Same boat.  Cell holds the stated +2, our neck is the same size as yours, terminates in the stock NA location, albeit the opposite side to get it way from the driver. 

 

Was there not an existing rule that stated filler necks had to be installed in a manner the was the shortest route from the cell to the fill location?  Had this been actually enforced from the beginning this may not have become an issue.

 

With this, and the continuous addition of "FREE STUFF", my interest in the series is starting to slip.  Especially when we still have swap weights that are 100% egregious to benefit certain cars.  I would love to have a BOD member explain how that is "fair" and in the spirit of the series, especially since this is no longer a $$$ based focused series.  We allow $$$ diffs, radiators, brake kits, suspension systems, engine builds, etc.  If the BOD feels we need to close up loopholes, start closing the swaps weights, heck, that will effect less members than the fuel rule, shouldn't be a big deal then.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hurljohn said:

I think you would have a good petition argument for vpi reduction...

Why? So we can get past this and deal with some other bullsh*t in a year or two? 

Nah. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pjt said:

 

Well this part can be trivially verified by taking the the temperature of the fuel before and after it's pumped in and pumped out.  This requires no special equipment.  In the extremely unlikely event you measure any meaningful temperature change in the fuel being pumped in and out, repeat the measurement; it's literally a self-equalizing process.

 

For something so trivial you got it wrong on a few fronts including but not limited to how a fuel capacity test is done.  That said it isn't worth our time debating it. The point I was making is that your were misconstruing what Bandit was stating. 

 

The correct procedure simply follows this:

  • Volume of fuel should not be measured by a commercial fuel pump. Variance in pumps and non ambient fuel temperature resulting is expansion after the pump measurement will both impact the actual volume when the test occurs. 
  • Both the volume of fuel used in the test and the capacity test should be measured after the fuel is brought up to ambient temperature. If not possible, at a minimum the test fuel volume should be measured shortly before the test. 

 

 

Edited by veris
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, turbogrill said:

To be fair they did the change due to a safety concern (check the video):

 

 

If it's a safety issue, make the rule directly address the safety issue. Fuel capacity is not a safety issue. 

 

I agree that the intent has to do with safety....  but, its like giving us 5 minutes for a pit stop so we don't spill fuel....  why not just make a rule against spilling fuel?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, veris said:

 

For something so trivial you got it wrong on a few fronts including but not limited to how a fuel capacity test is done.  That said it isn't worth our time debating it. The point I was making is that your were misconstruing what Bandit was stating. 

 

The correct procedure simply follows this:

  • Volume of fuel should not be measured by a commercial fuel pump. Variance in pumps and non ambient fuel temperature resulting is expansion after the pump measurement will both impact the actual volume when the test occurs. 
  • Both the volume of fuel used in the test and the capacity test should be measured after the fuel is brought up to ambient temperature. If not possible, at a minimum the test fuel volume should be measured shortly before the test. 

 

 

 

If we can avoid ad hominem language, your callouts had nothing to do with anything I said.


I agree it should have nothing to do with a commercial pump (and I never even hinted that it should; I have no idea where this is coming from). 

 

What you are describing is exactly what I would expect.  Fill with a pre-measured volume of fuel at ambient temperature.  The things you're suggesting I'm getting "wrong" are entirely assumptions you are making.  By doing this, all references that Bandit and others are calling out to fuel volumes at specific temperatures are irrelevant.  The key as has been cited repeatedly in this thread is holding the fuel being used for measurement at a relatively constant temperature, regardless of what that temperature is.  The point of my second reply is that this is an easily verifiable step using a simple thermometer before and after pumping the fuel in/out.

Edited by pjt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, turbogrill said:

To be fair they did the change due to a safety concern (check the video):

 

 

There is already a fuel system safety rule in the current BCCR so that doesn't fly.    If you believe that then I have some ocean front property in Iowa to sell you. 

 

Can anyone give ANY examples to these these "safety concerns"?   Where are the examples of fires, leaks, failures, etc.... ?  Teams, races, and dates would be great.   Go ahead, I'll wait. 

 

9.10.2.10. Fuel Cell Installation: If you decide to install a fuel cell, it must be securely mounted in a professional manner and must be installed in a safe location. All aftermarket fuel components must use threaded fittings and appropriate hose types, and include all appropriate racecar quality vents, valves, and other features. Fuel cell installation will be judged on overall execution and apparent safety

Edited by Snake
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a lighter note, since it has taken us ~ 2 years to build our next car thanks to Covid and work distractions, we won't  show up with some finger cutting hacked up hood vents as we haven't got that far yet.  Any links or suggestions for some hood vents greatly appreciated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tneker said:

On a lighter note, since it has taken us ~ 2 years to build our next car thanks to Covid and work distractions, we won't  show up with some finger cutting hacked up hood vents as we haven't got that far yet.  Any links or suggestions for some hood vents greatly appreciated.


racelouvers.com

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, tneker said:

On a lighter note, since it has taken us ~ 2 years to build our next car thanks to Covid and work distractions, we won't  show up with some finger cutting hacked up hood vents as we haven't got that far yet.  Any links or suggestions for some hood vents greatly appreciated.

Another wonderful example of the disjointed, confused and illogical decisions made by the series. Two years ago, hood vents were material points. Then last year they became fixed value items. Now in 2022 they're free. 

Great job of making a solid decision and sticking with it. 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, enginerd said:

One gallon of water takes up the same space as one gallon of gasoline which takes up the same space as one gallon of hot diesel which takes up the same space as one gallon of liquid nitrogen. 

Next you are going to try to convince me that a ton of feathers somehow weighs the same as a ton of bricks, Balderdash!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all this was painful, my thoughts, right or wrong.

 

Correct me if mistaken but the board can come up with their own rules, transparency or not, we don’t need a petition to change something. 
 

Stock fuel tank cars have never been covered, and historically been allowed to open up/ use expansion space inside the tank via modified venting. The factory capacity listed on the car was generally accepted as a guideline & wasn’t set in stone based on the many variables discussed... generically speaking... based on the discussed physics, all the manufactures are going to have roughly a proportionate amount of expansion room for X number of gallons, regardless, of any holes people punch in this story, it kind of worked. 
 Throwing change in after working this problem/issue for 10+ years is a big deal if applied to unmolested stock tank cars with blueprinted fuel pump pickups that have modified venting.

 

The only reason cells were   given a  plus or minus 2 gallons was to make purchasing an aftermarket “safer“ fuel system cost-effective, of course, everybody went with the plus.
Then

Being racers, we had excuses why extended filler necks were necessary, even for easy to access fuel cells. 

 

 

There are 5 gallon calibrated containers used at gas stations by governing bodies  to check honesty and accuracy, they’re easily available on eBay *To Anyone.*

 

I’m not a trained engineering student but, nobody here is racing a car filled with nitrogen chilled gasoline, roughly speaking, the checking container will be about the temperature of the gas tank when the tests are performed, you don’t have to get this down to milliliter in precision to see what Fuel cells are fudging. This is for fun, please everybody remember that we are racing for junk parts trophies.

 

Excessive or unnecessary fuel necks need to be looked at.

 

Disclaimer: we have a short, larger fuel neck in place of a longer skinny one to make a fueling less messy, but would forgo that if necessary.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Work issues kept me tied up today and into the night.  Just got a chance to see some of these comments.  I didn’t see any board members in the discussion, so I figured I would jump in with a few comments.

 

The whole temperature thing has been explained why it’s a non-issue for this topic pretty sufficiently by several posters previously so no need to hash that any further.

 

The 2 gallon rule was more about closing the difference of cars with cells having the additional 2 gallons allowed by the rules plus whatever you can fit in a fill neck vs a stock tank.  Just stick with stock tank vs cell in the same car, those with cells could have close to 3 gallons more in some cases.  Yes, some stock tank can be made to hold more than listed volume, others not so much.  This just eliminates that difference, you get 2 extra gallons max regardless of whether you install a cell or not.  If you can only get factory listed capacity in your unmodified stock tank, you can install a cell and get two extra gallons.  Or for example if you can modify your vent and get the two extra gallons in the stock tank, you don’t have to install a cell and still legally get that same capacity of the guy that installs a cell.  Everybody gets the chance to have 2 extra gallons and only two extra gallons however you can get it and can be verified at impound.

 

I understand that is pretty short and simplistic, but it’s late.  I have to carry the casket of a good friend tomorrow so I probably won’t respond in the next day or two dealing with that.  I don’t say that to invoke any kind of sympathy, it is merely an explanation of why I won’t be back here responding promptly.  Hopefully it can wait until I get back, or one of the other board members can jump in.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

jump

Trying to equalize fuel capacity with your synopsis is inconsistent with club history, see above, I was typing while you were.

 

Sorry about your friend, I too have been tied up all day as I’m on a road trip to see my dad because his time is approaching at an unknown pace.

 Racing rightfully takes a backseat to life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Bill Strong said:

So how is that going to be addressed? Do we use a correction factor based on the type of fuel you are using and the fuel temperature?

I haven't read this thread entirely, but here's my answer to this.  Pump the tank.  Buy a test measure kit from Seraphin (or China) and measure a known quantity and weigh that. Then use the same fuel that you just sampled for your measured value to fill the tank. Otherwise there will probably be some grumbling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bandit said:

You contradict yourself here.

 

If density is higher the volume can't stay the same.

I've only gotten to page 5, but did you ever figure this out?  Are you saying that 1cc of gold has more volume than 1cc of silver because it has a higher density?  Or that somehow more dense things cannot occupy physically the same amount of space as less dense things? Something here seems very dense and it's not cold fuel.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zack_280 said:

I've only gotten to page 5, but did you ever figure this out?  Are you saying that 1cc of gold has more volume than 1cc of silver because it has a higher density?  Or that somehow more dense things cannot occupy physically the same amount of space as less dense things? Something here seems very dense and it's not cold fuel.

 

It should be pretty obvious I was talking about one thing, gasoline, increasing in volume as temperature rises. Not comparing the densities of two different materials.

 

Who's the dense one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I have read most of the thread. From my perspective as a team owner racing with WRL and dealing with a fuel capacity rule, the there are a few areas of concern.  Lets assume the series has a reliable way of measure the fixed volume of a fuel system, so measuring isn't one of them.

1. How do you safely get fuel out of your car at impound? 

2. How do you even do the pump out?  Does it have to be from the fuel rail? A 175lph pump pumps out 46 gallons in 1 hour.  So it takes time.  Will your battery last that long?  Will your fuel pump stay on and run, or will the ECU kill it after it primes the system?

3. Are you sure you'll be under on fuel?  The only way to know is to pump out at home.  Measuring capacity at home is not as easy as it sounds.

 

We have a dry break at the fuel rail and a jumper to keep the fuel pump on and a small battery.  We bring a power supply to power the fuel pump for the ~20 minutes or so it takes to pump out.

 

There was a WRL car that was recently pumped out with a stock tank and a stock filler that had a capacity that was ~3 gallons over manufacturer stated and they did not have a surge tank.  It was a make/model that is on the VPI list.  So even if you have a stock tank, you may not be in compliance.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zack_280 said:

There was a WRL car that was recently pumped out with a stock tank and a stock filler that had a capacity that was ~3 gallons over manufacturer stated and they did not have a surge tank.  It was a make/model that is on the VPI list.  So even if you have a stock tank, you may not be in compliance.

I honestly think this is the only part of the rule that we should be discussing.  I know I've packed in more fuel than what my car was listed at, both race cars and street cars (I know, I know). Is +2 the safest number to use? Should we not be looking to pack it full and just hit a max number, if so, how do you ensure this at the track during a pit stop?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom-line here is that cars that are fuel rich...E30, SC300, Altima, 944, et al...just got a huge gift and increased advantage (over what they already had) over every other car that's not fuel rich. It's actually exacerbated the situation. 

 

Does anybody actually think this is going to be changed by the BOD? Look at what just happened to the NC Miata...and that was only made public. Who knows what other behind-the-scenes garbage is happening.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zack_280 said:

Now I have read most of the thread. From my perspective as a team owner racing with WRL and dealing with a fuel capacity rule, the there are a few areas of concern.  Lets assume the series has a reliable way of measure the fixed volume of a fuel system, so measuring isn't one of them.

1. How do you safely get fuel out of your car at impound? 

2. How do you even do the pump out?  Does it have to be from the fuel rail? A 175lph pump pumps out 46 gallons in 1 hour.  So it takes time.  Will your battery last that long?  Will your fuel pump stay on and run, or will the ECU kill it after it primes the system?

3. Are you sure you'll be under on fuel?  The only way to know is to pump out at home.  Measuring capacity at home is not as easy as it sounds.

 

We have a dry break at the fuel rail and a jumper to keep the fuel pump on and a small battery.  We bring a power supply to power the fuel pump for the ~20 minutes or so it takes to pump out.

 

There was a WRL car that was recently pumped out with a stock tank and a stock filler that had a capacity that was ~3 gallons over manufacturer stated and they did not have a surge tank.  It was a make/model that is on the VPI list.  So even if you have a stock tank, you may not be in compliance.

 

Good points here. It takes forever to pump our system out.

 

Also, when does the pump out stop? When the pump runs dry? Who is paying for that?

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...