NZV8's 2011/12 - Page 24

Jerico · 30 Jan 2012, 08:21 (Ref:3018769)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Revhead

I could day plenty. But I'll just let the above pics do the talking

You said day I think you meant play. What are you playing with Mr Rev?

Mark Petch · 30 Jan 2012, 08:26 (Ref:3018771)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

The photo of the ST is without the collapsible bolt in rail ends and the fully welded rear panel fitted plus the ST runs an HSS rear bumper iron. The fuel cell is a long way in from the rear of the car held in a steel the fuel cell fitted to the NZV8s that have run that way for years.SC is a very different car in the rear end from the ST. SC will run a transaxle and the in car fuel cell. I do hear that some drivers and teams are not happy about having the fuel cell inside the car with the driver. I wonder why??? The photo posted here yesterday of the ST doesn't really show the chassis very well, so it makes you think it's a very simple design which it is not!

Thank you Jerico, I wonder why we bother, still they say ignorance is bliss.

I know I could not possibly persuade the knockers and haters on this thread, or the V8ST thread for that matter, which is why I sent a private pm to Revhead when he expressed his concerns about the safety of our cars.

The explanation was sent to him in good faith yet he choose to publish it on this thread in order to make capital of it.

Mark Petch.
V8Supertourers Ltd

Mr Revhead · 30 Jan 2012, 09:17 (Ref:3018787)

Capital my arse.
Several times you have sent a PM instead of answering valid questions and/or statements in the body of the thread. At no point did you say "please keep this to yourself" In fact I replied to your pm asking why you chose to not reply in thread. You did not reply so I posted it in here.
So don't come moaning on on here about me being a hater or whatever.
Pull ya head in and participate in the discussion or bugger off.

Those pics quite clearly show either an incomplete car, or an inferior design.

Mr Revhead · 30 Jan 2012, 09:18 (Ref:3018788)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

You said day I think you meant play. What are you playing with Mr Rev?

lol, I meant say.

Mr Revhead · 30 Jan 2012, 09:21 (Ref:3018790)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

The photo of the ST is without the collapsible bolt in rail ends and the fully welded rear panel fitted plus the ST runs an HSS rear bumper iron. The fuel cell is a long way in from the rear of the car held in a steel box.Unlike the fuel cell fitted to the NZV8s that have run that way for years.SC is a very different car in the rear end from the ST. SC will run a transaxle and the in car fuel cell. I do hear that some drivers and teams are not happy about having the fuel cell inside the car with the driver. I wonder why??? The photo posted here yesterday of the ST doesn't really show the chassis very well, so it makes you think it's a very simple design which it is not!

What's an HSS bumper iron?

Anyone moaning about fuel cell placement in a SC is obviously full of it, or has not seen it in place. Take a look at those pics again. It's not inside with the driver. It's enclosed in a steel casing.

Looks like the rear bulkhead extends out to enclose it.

on_to_it · 30 Jan 2012, 20:03 (Ref:3019058)

High Speed Steel - very tough and very hard.

Chappelli · 31 Jan 2012, 03:49 (Ref:3019234)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

The photo of the ST is without the collapsible bolt in rail ends and the fully welded rear panel fitted plus the ST runs an HSS rear bumper iron. The fuel cell is a long way in from the rear of the car held in a steel box.Unlike the fuel cell fitted to the NZV8s that have run that way for years.SC is a very different car in the rear end from the ST. SC will run a transaxle and the in car fuel cell. I do hear that some drivers and teams are not happy about having the fuel cell inside the car with the driver. I wonder why??? The photo posted here yesterday of the ST doesn't really show the chassis very well, so it makes you think it's a very simple design which it is not!

But is it safer than the V8SC COTF?

promax · 31 Jan 2012, 04:26 (Ref:3019245)

hmmm an increase in numbers.. and we're now safely back into double figures

Biggy G · 31 Jan 2012, 05:28 (Ref:3019253)

Got a few shots of the Next Gen NZV8 at Ruapuna

Full album here: http://imgur.com/a/96V0Y

or on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/grangerdesign

promax · 31 Jan 2012, 05:42 (Ref:3019255)

cheers G!

Jerico · 31 Jan 2012, 05:53 (Ref:3019258)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chappelli

But is it safer than the V8SC COTF?

Depends what safety point you are referring to, if you are talking about the fuel tanks then the SC is probably safer in a high speed rear end crash. But don't forget in recent times we have only seen one fuel cell explode, then suddenly we need to redesign the car?
I think the main reason they moved the tank forward was for weight purposes,after the fitting of the new trans axel. Safety doesn't end with just rear end hits, what happens if a car leaves the track and mounts a barrier puncturing the tank, or runs over debris on the track.
There could be a drive line failure and the result is a fire because you have ruptured the fuel tank. Then what do you do, pull to the side of the track and wait for help? The car is on fire the paint is burning off the inside of the floor, the car is full of smoke and fumes. You have two choices, stay in the car and you can't breath or climb out through the flames that are pouring out from under your car? If it was me I would prefer the fire to be contained at the back end of the car, which would be the case with the ST car
There's pro's and con's with both concepts.

RogerH · 31 Jan 2012, 06:21 (Ref:3019259)

From what I inferred from TV3 tonight Angus Fogg is looking to jump to ST (plus I've heard another "star" NZV8 driver is also contemplating making the switch).
If this happens it looks like NZV8/MRX would be a dead duck - thanks MSNZ for probably blowing members $ on MRX design and jigs ...........

Jerico · 31 Jan 2012, 06:26 (Ref:3019260)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Revhead

What's an HSS bumper iron?

Anyone moaning about fuel cell placement in a SC is obviously full of it, or has not seen it in place. Take a look at those pics again. It's not inside with the driver. It's enclosed in a steel casing.

Looks like the rear bulkhead extends out to enclose it.

HSS is High strenght Steel, cars of today have a large content of HSS and HSAS Steel, which is High Strenght Alloy Steel.

You will find HSS steel in the doors of the ST.

There is also Boron Steel, which is an advanced high strength steel, to drill this steel you need a special and expensive drill bit as a normal drill bits will not drill it.

Point2 · 31 Jan 2012, 06:31 (Ref:3019262)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

Depends what safety point you are referring to, if you are talking about the fuel tanks then the SC is probably safer in a high speed rear end crash. But don't forget in recent times we have only seen one fuel cell explode, then suddenly we need to redesign the car?
I think the main reason they moved the tank forward was for weight purposes,after the fitting of the new trans axel. Safety doesn't end with just rear end hits, what happens if a car leaves the track and mounts a barrier puncturing the tank, or runs over debris on the track.
There could be a drive line failure and the result is a fire because you have ruptured the fuel tank. Then what do you do, pull to the side of the track and wait for help? The car is on fire the paint is burning off the inside of the floor, the car is full of smoke and fumes. You have two choices, stay in the car and you can't breath or climb out through the flames that are pouring out from under your car? If it was me I would prefer the fire to be contained at the back end of the car, which would be the case with the ST car
There's pro's and con's with both concepts.

Moving the fuel cell from the rear of the car (drop tank style) to under the rear passenger seat (split design with driveshaft thru the middle) made a huge difference in handling in my race car.
And in my opinion just as safe. Fuel is inside a bladder inside of tank, tank is concealed under removable panel.

promax · 31 Jan 2012, 06:35 (Ref:3019263)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerH

From what I inferred from TV3 tonight Angus Fogg is looking to jump to ST (plus I've heard another "star" NZV8 driver is also contemplating making the switch).
If this happens it looks like NZV8/MRX would be a dead duck - thanks MSNZ for probably blowing members $ on MRX design and jigs ...........

going by Fogg's Speedshow interview.. he didn't seem to care much for the split.. he just wanted to race.

so was Angus looking at buying a car or will he be filling an empty seat?

Jerico · 31 Jan 2012, 06:54 (Ref:3019267)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Point2

Moving the fuel cell from the rear of the car (drop tank style) to under the rear passenger seat (split design with driveshaft thru the middle) made a huge difference in handling in my race car.
And in my opinion just as safe. Fuel is inside a bladder inside of tank, tank is concealed under removable panel.

Not like your car the SC had no option but to move the tank, once they went to a trans axle. Having the fuel tank in it's normal position, caused a weight problem, which effected the balance of the car.

As I said there are pro's and con's.

Good for you, I hope it all works out okay for you.

RogerH · 31 Jan 2012, 07:02 (Ref:3019268)

Quote:

Originally Posted by promax

going by Fogg's Speedshow interview.. he didn't seem to care much for the split.. he just wanted to race.

so was Angus looking at buying a car or will he be filling an empty seat?

I think there is general agreement by almost all that the split is counter-productive BUT ....... it now appears that the "star" drivers, entrants, sponsors and media are gravitating towards the ST and if drivers want to race, ST is going to be where the action is.

Unfortunately this would mean the NZV8/MRX will be the losers and MSNZ members will (again) front up by being charged extra on licence fees, entry fees etc for another suspect decision by MSNZ executive who should have stayed out of the commercial world they don't understand.

When I was racing the other weekend this NZV8/ST/TMC/MSNZ was a topic of conversation and a number of competitors had the attitude that although it would cost them $$ in the short term it was probably worthwhile to get rid of TMC and get MSNZ back to what they are meant to be doing.

Point2 · 31 Jan 2012, 07:04 (Ref:3019270)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

Not like your car the SC had no option but to move the tank, once they went to a trans axle. Having the fuel tank in it's normal position, caused a weight problem, which effected the balance of the car.

As I said there are pro's and con's.

Good for you, I hope it all works out okay for you.

Very true.
Worked well until it blew a fuel reg up front and fireballed the car!!!
Oh the irony of it all!!

Chappelli · 31 Jan 2012, 07:06 (Ref:3019271)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

Not like your car the SC had no option but to move the tank, once they went to a trans axle. Having the fuel tank in it's normal position, caused a weight problem, which effected the balance of the car.

As I said there are pro's and con's.

Good for you, I hope it all works out okay for you.

Assuming the transaxle decision was made before the fuel tank decision and not the other way around.

Point2 · 31 Jan 2012, 07:15 (Ref:3019273)

In a enduro will they run a bigger tank? Or a secondary tank to flow to the original?

RogerH · 31 Jan 2012, 07:21 (Ref:3019274)

Quote:

Originally Posted by promax

going by Fogg's Speedshow interview.. he didn't seem to care much for the split.. he just wanted to race.

so was Angus looking at buying a car or will he be filling an empty seat?

This is what was said on TV3 tonight : "With NZV8 championship leader Angus Fogg lining up for a place in the Supertourers, it's clear which series has the drivers vote.
While Fogg is likely to change camps to Holden ..."

Mr Revhead · 31 Jan 2012, 07:38 (Ref:3019276)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

Depends what safety point you are referring to, if you are talking about the fuel tanks then the SC is probably safer in a high speed rear end crash. But don't forget in recent times we have only seen one fuel cell explode, then suddenly we need to redesign the car?
I think the main reason they moved the tank forward was for weight purposes,after the fitting of the new trans axel. Safety doesn't end with just rear end hits, what happens if a car leaves the track and mounts a barrier puncturing the tank, or runs over debris on the track.
There could be a drive line failure and the result is a fire because you have ruptured the fuel tank. Then what do you do, pull to the side of the track and wait for help? The car is on fire the paint is burning off the inside of the floor, the car is full of smoke and fumes. You have two choices, stay in the car and you can't breath or climb out through the flames that are pouring out from under your car? If it was me I would prefer the fire to be contained at the back end of the car, which would be the case with the ST car
There's pro's and con's with both concepts.

I suggest you have another look at the picture and see if you can spot what is wrong with your comments

Jerico · 31 Jan 2012, 07:45 (Ref:3019278)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Revhead

I suggest you have another look at the picture and see if you can spot what is wrong with your comments

If you think I'm wrong, then just say so, you don't have to beat a round the bush with me.

Mr Revhead · 31 Jan 2012, 07:49 (Ref:3019280)

As I posted earlier the Fuel tank is not inside the cabin.
The bulkhead extends over it to enclosed it outside the cabin.
There 2 removable covers to access fittings in the top.
Which will be less risk than currant cars that have fuel and oil lines running through the cabin.
So your implications of a fire hazard due to the above scenarios are not valid.

Jerico · 31 Jan 2012, 07:51 (Ref:3019282)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chappelli

Assuming the transaxle decision was made before the fuel tank decision and not the other way around.

Let me say this, the trans axle and the fuel tank changes were not thought up over night. If they put the fuel tank in front of the rear axle, then they would need to put some replacement weight at rear axle, hence the trans axle.

In our car we have always tried as much as possible to put more weight at the rear of the rear axle, not less.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
IRISH CSHIP 2011/12	Ramah	Rallying & Rallycross	13	12 Oct 2011 11:14
2011 Bathurst 12 Hour	Belly13	Australasian Touring Cars.	773	28 Feb 2011 07:19
Bathurst 12 Hour Race 2011	Acid09	Sportscar & GT Racing	19	6 Feb 2011 09:31