US Sanctioned Club Racing a GT40

Anyone have a 40 running and a US-sanctioned club?

As I am getting closer to getting a car I've been looking into what it takes to get one on the track. I have perused the GCR from SCCA and the CC&R from NASA (not the space agency one) and there doesn't seem to be a specific class they will fit into very well except for the kit car class (based on a wt/hp index) with NASA. They'd also seem to fit in ASR for SCCA but would likely get slaughtered by any purpose built SR. Anybody found a category for wheel-to-wheel racing yet?

Also I'd be curious to hear solutions regarding fuel tank locations. If anyone out there is a tech inspector or knows a scrutineer, I'd be curious as to if they'd log book a car with the sponson tanks.

Additionally, with the chassis actually forming the tanks with an RCR, an issue I'd need to deal with is having a second metal bulkhead between the tanks and the passenger compartment. The obvious solution is leave the stock ones empty and put another fuel cell located somewhere else, but I'd be curious if anyone can offer other solutions using the existing configuration which is both sanction-body legal and safe as well. I don't want to get fully committed with the project and suddenly not be able to have fun with it.

Any ideas?

Thanks in advance!
Chris

I think that Ron Earp started a thread on this topic earlier this year, you may want to do a quick search.

Regards,

Al

One thing I should mention is that I was thinking along similar lines with respect to fuel relocation. A fuel cell in the shape of a spare tire (say 10" x 25" diameter) holds about 21.25 gallons. This is probably bigger than you can jam into the front well of an RCR and still put the hood on, but that's about the only place I could come up with. That, plus run-flat tires, I guess!

Hi Al,

I remembered Ron's thread but was curious if anyone had done any further homework regarding this. I haven't found any obvious catgories to run in.

My big question was more regarding the tanks for the RCR. Your idea was exactly what I was thinking as well but I haven't researched to figure out if there is a commercially available cell which fits the bill.

Regarding Ron, I am curious as to how he was thinking he'd get his Lola through the log-booking process with the sponson tanks or if he's got another plan up his sleeves. Not to put you on the spot, but what's your plan Ron?

Chris

Hi Chris,

One thing I was concerned about was having the cell stick out past the front of the chassis, and being subject to a direct front impact. So I might have to go with a custom ATL cell that doesn't go much past the panel with the white arrow on it in the photo below. That's probably good for at least 8-10 gallons, which is enough for me in the short events I participate in. But for Ron and his enduros, he will probably want to fill the factory tanks, the front tank and have 5 gallons riding in the passenger seat .

I think that an inner/upper puncture of the factory tank is highly unlikely in an RCR simply based on the amount/thickness of material that needs to be penetrated, but it is possible. So because 1. I'm really afraid of fire and 2. my wife asked "where is the gas tank?" when she was sitting in the RCR the other day, it seems a cell will be a necessity for me.

Al

I'm not sure if they were contained in the thread mentioned above, but there were some photos posted a while back of a front end collision test (done by Ford), where "fuel" flew everywhere, due to the front tires crushing the front of the sponsons, compressing the fuel in the tanks very quickly, and consequently blowing the fuel caps out. I don't think that the tanks were compromised (physically holed), but fire would pretty much have been a given, had this been done with gasoline, and not water. It'd be worth a search to see the results of the test, if you haven't already.



Bill

I think the only way you'd get through SCCA or NASA tech would be with a fuel cell bolted into the passenger seat area.

Chassis/Fuel/Rollcage and Racing

I've been having and email discussion with another member about how to get the GT40s (and Lola!) into organized racing. I'd had a similar discussion with another member over a year ago but he was not trying to get the car into organized racing per sea, but trying to develop a class. With no racing experience he was unaware of how inflexible some of the sanctioning bodies are, but, they are that way for a reason. Without proper safety gear, cages, restraints, etc. no sanctioning body will have a class for members to race in, no way. The best way to get one of these cars in is to get the car to fit into an existing class and go from there.

I'm hoping to put the Lola into an SCCA class, Special Production Over (SPO) could be one possibility. Another could be Improved Touring E (ITE). Each has some specific ramifications that have an impact on how we proceed.

The cage design for both, at least the way I would construct it, would be the same for each class. And, I think we can meet cage design rules. It won't be easy since we're using an aluminum monocoque, but, the cage can be bolted in properly with much care and attention to detail (and while I don't prefer a bolt in, we're not talking about a flimsy bolt in but using 100 sq inches of contact pad for each tube at 3/16" thick and bolted in a non-remoable way). Anyhow, there are various cage designs that can be used that will meet and exceed design requirements. I use www.competitioncages.com for our cars and Chris does great work if you are in the SE.

The fuel system however is something of a problem that Chris brought up and I've been thinking about as well. A lot of GT40s don't have a fuel system that will pass SCCA SPO specs - foam, bladders, etc. notwithstanding. Here are some of the design issues for an SPO type fuel system:

• One of the problems is that the fuel tanks much be separated from the drivers compartment with a metal barrier. Naturally, this metal barrier can't be the side of the fuel tank, they mean an additional metal barrier or bulkhead.
• Fuel cell must be made out of at least 0.036" thick steel, or 0.060" thick aluminum.
• Fuel cell must have a foam filled bladder.
• Fuel system must have positive locking cap, no monza style or flip caps allowed.
• Recommened that all caps, lines, and vents be incorporated into a single fitting at the top of the fuel cell.
• Check valves must be installed to prevent fuel leakage if the filler neck and vent is ripped off the tank.
• System shall be designed so that if the car is partially or fulling inverted no fuel shall escape.
• And some other stuff.

So, some GT40s don't pass the specs because the wall of the tank is the inner wall of the cockpit. Basically, the monocoque cars, all of them as far as I know, have this design. The space frames would pass okay provided they are paneled with a metal bulk head on the space frame between you and the cockpit, and, the fuel tanks meet those requirements above, in itself no easy feat.

Using a monocoque with these design rules might take a little more clever work. Clearly, a bulkhead could be fabricated that puts a wall between you and the fuel tanks. Would take some work, but the rules don't say what the distance has to be between the bulkhead and the tank, it might be 0.100" and simply be akin to putting a "liner" in the cockpit.

Alternatively, a fellow more learned than I suggested putting a fuel cell smack dab in the passenger compartment, then walling it off with bulkhead as per design rules. That would work too, but, I'm not all that keen on driving around with a fuel tank in my passenger compartment. But, then I thought that is what is done on all 40s anyhow, you're just between and sitting beside the tanks so really little different. It'd work.

Fit a cell in the nose? Maybe possible, with a cleverly designed cell, but it might be prone to damage. Doesn't matter, so is everything else on the car. Tail area? Maybe, the rear sponsons beside the engine could become cells I suppose. In the end, I haven't decided how to do this or if SPO is a place to attempt to run. The bottom line is all GT40s, no matter what the design, need significant modifications to meet modern racing requirements and this is just one of the many that must be accomidated.

Now, if the car ran in ITE, which is a regional "catch all" class that is very regional - that is, some would allow a GT40/Lola in ITE, and some would not. Here in the SE it could probably happen, but in the midwest I don't think they would allow one of these in ITE. Anyhow, if you got it in ITE, with a logbook, then you could use the stock fuel tanks. Cage rules would still apply, but the SPO style fuel cell requirement would be dropped. Getting it in ITE, with a logbook, would be the trick, but not that hard. ITE is a catch all in the SE, so, if one shows up with a race car that meets the other IT rules, and has a VIN, then it gets a logbook. At that point it could race in Improved Touring E class, the enduro, basically anywhere in the SCCA where ITE is allowed.

There are other bodies I don't know much about such as NASA. NASA developed classes for "Kit Cars", KC1 through KC5, which represented "Kit Cars" with 100 to 500+ hp respectively. Could be a place for them to go there, but I think Chris might have some more comments on specs there than I do. Any NASA info?

I'm also looking into Historic santioning bodies too and will post findings. We have some connections in the SVRA and are pretty sure we can can get a logbook there, but I'm not that keen to run around on bias ply tires etc. One of the reasons the Jensen (real reason is it doesn't run!), TR8, Zs, and other vintage eligable cars people have have don't go out to play there at those events is the tire rule - we would essentially have to purchase either odd size, or bias ply tires for a few times a year historic events, not cheap.

Ron

Sorry for the mess, first time playing with the new thread merging features on this forum. I wrote my piece off line not knowing the other thread had been started by Chris, and, I put mine in a different forum as Chris. Merging them altogether seemed like a good idea but there are some repeats in the posts since I wasn't aware of what was going on initially when I wrote mine.

I dont know what RCR, CAV and others use as bulkheads or stiffeners in the sponsons but I had thought in my own car of fabricating the sponson in a manner where a fuel cell could be inserted from the rear wheel well or directly from the side with the sill moulding and a removeable panel. With the mono construction this would give the necessary bulkhead and keep the fuel on the c.g for balance purpose's. I dont intend to use the full width or length of the sponson thereby giving some degree of crush zone for front/ rear/side impact .etc

Jac Mac

One issue that would arise in SCCA or NASA, I bet, will be knock offs. I'm pretty sure they are not allowed, but have not checked the GCR. SVRA is probably okay with them, but I'd have to check.

Ron

Fatal Attraction said:

I'm not sure if they were contained in the thread mentioned above, but there were some photos posted a while back of a front end collision test (done by Ford), where "fuel" flew everywhere, due to the front tires crushing the front of the sponsons, compressing the fuel in the tanks very quickly, and consequently blowing the fuel caps out. I don't think that the tanks were compromised (physically holed), but fire would pretty much have been a given, had this been done with gasoline, and not water. It'd be worth a search to see the results of the test, if you haven't already.

Click to expand...

You mean the one in my Avatar Bill.

Ron,
Reference you post - do you think it may only be a matter of time before our community may be forced to put the fuel in like the new GT?

Brett

Brett,

I've not put fuel in a new Ford GT, so not sure how it works.

Do you mean center fuel tank? Or the pressurized locking caps? Or else?

Most replica seem to now have the OEM locking style caps hidden under the flip up "Le Mans" cap. I like this and I don't think I'd like to run the flip ups alone.

On the fuel tanks I don't see it becoming an issue in the US for road cars. We don't have a SVA like in the UK that requires a lot of headlight heights, mirror sizes, bolt sizes, etc. We just have the basics - do the lights work?, horn work?, brakes work?, okay you are done. And, as such we don't have a organizing body that would look at a road going GT40 and say "Hey, let's make these things have different fuel tanks". I suppose that is one of the very few advantages of having a patchwork system, 50 different ones, of registering a self-built car - there isn't much of a system to look at things and regulate them out of existance.

Ron,
I meant the fuel tank itself. I just wonder how long before legislation catches up... Also, would it have a benefit for any of the racer fraternity, as the weight would be more central and there fore maybe effect draining of the fuel on the dynamics? Anyone with a proper engineering background care to comment?

Brett

Central Tank

Ron,
I meant the fuel tank itself. I just wonder how long before legislation catches up by requiring crumple zones around the tank etc?

Also, would it have a benefit for any of the racer fraternity, as the weight would be more central and there fore maybe effect draining of the fuel on the dynamics? Anyone with a proper engineering background care to comment?

Brett

I saw this http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/06/16/011567.html and thought it might be a work around for some of the fuel cell issues. Seem's to work for the military.

I was testing my car with SCCA this weekend. All I wanted to do was bed in brakes and break in the new motor. Because SCCA puts on some vintage races I figured that a SVRA or HSR legal car could run. WRONG. They want vintage cars to adhere to current rules. My cage would not and probably could not pass. They REQUIRE a cage to be welded into the chassis. That means some type of steel bulkhead built into the aluminum monocoque. Forward, rear and side impact bars in the chassis along with a diagonal across the main hoop are required. All good ideas but impossible to implement. There are also rules regarding foot placement in relation to the front axle and other , mostly safety, things that would need attention. In a tube chassis car I think you could redesign the car to make it work, but the cars are so small there are not a lot of options.
Bill

brettmcc said:

You mean the one in my Avatar Bill.

Click to expand...

That's the one Brett!

I don't remember the exact speed of this test. Wasn't it 60MPH?

I'd love to see a close up of the gentlemen in the background of the photo.

I can imagine a look of slack jawed shock on every face!

I wonder who owns (or claims to own) this chassis today?



Bill

J What? said:

I was testing my car with SCCA this weekend. All I wanted to do was bed in brakes and break in the new motor. Because SCCA puts on some vintage races I figured that a SVRA or HSR legal car could run. WRONG. They want vintage cars to adhere to current rules. My cage would not and probably could not pass. They REQUIRE a cage to be welded into the chassis. That means some type of steel bulkhead built into the aluminum monocoque.
Bill

Click to expand...

You are right about most SVRA cars not being legal in SCCA. But, the cage, I don't think, does not have to be welded in. I think the tech inspector that told you that was incorrect and we find that sort of thing all over the SCCA. SCCA has too many Chief and not enough Indians, and the White Suit Chiefs are many times uninformed. Ask a simple question and get a lot of different answers.

I don't know what class they would try to say a J car was, but probably SPO, Super Production, Over. Cage rules there comply with 18.0 in the GCR and that outlines general cage contruction based on weight of car and tubing size required, as well as number of bends per section etc. Bolt in cages are specified in that section, with a lot of specs on mounting plates etc.

Weld in cages are required in Touring classes, but clearly your car would not fit there. I'll check with our tech inspector too but I'm not seeing anywhere in the GCR that would say weld in was required. Interesting because this has a impact on how one would go about getting replica into organized racing as well as what you were trying to do with your car.


Ron

The main concerns as I see them are.

1. The monza style caps will not seal in a shunt, even a light one.

2. The fill lines will be torn off, or otherwise leak, in a shunt and are in the worst place, directly behind the front wheels.

3. The tanks themselves are not flexible and will split, crack, or otherwise not remain sealed in a shunt. And they extend too far forward in relation to a crumple zone behind the front wheels.

I think that the best solution to the fire issue is to come up with a single fuel cell that will fit into a side pod and leave the first 12"s adjacent to the front tires void. I believe that you could put in 8, maybe even 10 gals per side this way.

Mount the fill at the rear inside the engine room or out the side of the car in the scoop area and use current state of the art fittings, vent one way valves, fill valves, caps etc. These are made by many including ATL.

Then seal the cockpit on the inside with a steel sheet of appropriate thickness. This will be much easier on space frame cars than monos I believe.

The original monza fillers could be left in place for the period correct look.

The problems are, I haven't been able to find a cell of the correct dimensions, the filler in the rear will not be "correct" looking, and unless this is done on the original build, the extensive modifications required.