As we appear to be having a few disscussions about rules here, perhaps someone can enlighten me if its allowed to fit an extra working fuel tank as long as the origonal one is kept and still used and stay in class? i.e. in an imp and stay in class 4 (not talking about specials here)
AFAIK......[about 4 feet].....there aren't any stipulations as to ''location'' of fuel tank in the production classes.......but then,the print in the bloo book is so darned small....................my skud has had its original tank removed, as it was so vulnerable, and required a lot of heavy guarding.......plus it got in the way of transmission repairs...so mine is in the front of the car..[where the rally folk put it].....[very old rear-engined models of skoda actually sported a front tank anyway.....but grouping a 1991 Rapid in with a 1966 1000MB is stretching even Mr Woodall's good will a bit too far?] why would you want an EXTRA working tank? Have your engine mods totally destroyed your fuel consumption?
ReplyDeleteIf we were to say an instant "NO" to John's query, we would in effect be banning the carrying of spare cans of fuel, which would be a rather silly thing to do. I know none of you have ever been so stupid as to run out of fuel half way round a trial, but how often have you loaned your can to "the other guy"? Strictly to the letter of the law you should not move the tank in a production car. But as Alistair comments, quite often production cars have the tanks mounted in vulnerable places - under the boot floor being the commonest - and therefore movement is tollerated in the interests of safety. MG Midgets and BMW's are two that spring immediately to mind.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, major modifications to the metalwork of a production car and I guess this includes the adding of metal as well as its removal, for competitive advantage is not something that can be condoned.
So are we saying No to this? The origonal tank would still be in place and fully working, I would just have an extra tank fitted to the vehicle which would also be fully working.
ReplyDeleteI would simply ''go for it''.........obviously, if a scrutineer objects strongly enough, then it can be removed, but...I don't really see a ''competitive advantage'' being gained by carrying extra fuel.....unless you intend to hang the tank off the rear bumper? regarding Simon's comment on the ''adding or removal of metal'' on a production car? How does this affect the Citroen 2CV's, which [ought to have] additional bracing struts from top of front bulkhead, to front of subframe? or indeed, my own small access hatch [suitably braced] cut into the 'floorpan'' under the rear seat, to aid replacement of stuff like handbrake cables, throttle cable, etc? is this all not simply down to common sense, and scrutineers' discretion? [I cannot understand...apart from slight weight issues.....why I cannot be allowed to replace my glass sunroof [tilting only] with a steel panel....in the interests of safety, should something impact on the glass over our heads?]
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I have not "gone for it" is because I dont want to run an illegal car. I had enough comments about the wheel rack on the back of my buggy (none to my face more's the pity), until it was declared legal by John the ever helpful scrutineering chappie. All this was on a car that was not even capable (even less so the driver) of winning its class, anyway that saga is now over as the buggy is RIP. Just don't want to turn up with something and someone shouts cheat!
ReplyDeleteAlister From fond memory of my Skoda days I believe that your tilting glass sunroof was a retrofit carried out by the importers of Skodas only for the British market. I think that the base model 105 did not necessarily have a sunshine roof. Regards Peter
ReplyDeleteI think most competitors could be 'pulled-up' for rule infringements of one form or another, if the scroots really tried...... And...here's me thinking that trialling was the last bastion of british sportsmanship whereby, providing infringements weren't too radical, no-one really complained? troll T6 has disappeared....but it ought to have been a winner?
ReplyDeleteHi Alistair - "troll T6 has disappeared....but it ought to have been a winner?" OK - I know its early for me but I'm not with this Regarding Fuel tanks the reality is that a lot of cars have not got original fuel tanks, mainly because of vunerability to damage. Skodas (relocated to the front) , Escorts and Midgets (inside the boot) spring to mind. I have never heard of them being pulled up by the scrut or criticisd by other competitors. Michael
ReplyDeleteCan I ask where you would put a second tank in an Imp? There's not a lot of room outside of the passenger compartment, next to the standard radiator (where the servo is on the cars that have them rear mounted) is about the only place I can think of, if you could get one the correct shape. In my long term plan for after I get the car to work at all(!) is to have an alloy tank made to fit the standard mounts, but the top to be about 3" higher (which should give about 3 gallons more capacity) and have the filler integral to the tank rather than a pipe to the standard location.
ReplyDeleteI'd have thought that so much weight over the front end of
ReplyDeletean Imp would hinder a trials car? Maybe better to fill up a few times en-route
and run the standard tank half full. Unless you've got a cunning plan
....?
John Rhodes
What's happened to the buggy John and the various old beetles that were decorating your garden last year?
ReplyDeleteDont think it matters where the tank goes, but if in a closed boot, be it front or rear, then the filler must have a spill tray incorporated around the filler with drain to outside. The filler cap must non vented and be properly sealed, with the tank vented to outside with a non return vave.
ReplyDeleteIan, The buggy is under a sheet at the bottom of the garden with a blown engine and I have no plans for it at present. The only thoughts I have had for it is to lower it and put a set of big wheels on it and sell it ( think it will be more saleable like that). I doubt it will be seen on the trials hills again. As to the other cars I have lying around I am still re-building one which hopefully will be out in about time for the Clee.
ReplyDeleteThis message has been deleted by the author.
ReplyDelete" .... I had enough comments about the wheel rack on the back of my buggy (none to my face more's the pity), until it was declared legal by John the ever helpful scrutineering chappie." Sad but true. There is always someone who will not have the decency to ask a question to your face (and check the facts) ..... but prefers to sow misinformation behind the scenes. AMHIK
ReplyDelete