Fuel tanks again

[chris.richard]

Has anybody got dimensions or pictures of the original steel Lancia fuel tanks?
And if the answer is yes, can I have a copy please? :)
TIA

[tryphon]

The 2 tanks are not identical Chris.

[GaryFitz]

Trypoon. i have a few sitting around in my garage but I am out of Japan until the 25th. It is can wait until then I can give you the full dimensions. Cheers Gary

[tryphon]

It's Chris looking Gary. FYI Roberto remakes them at reasonable prices.

[rutthenut]

I'm sure I should already have, or should know, but what capacity are the original Lancia fuel tanks?

And what about the Hawk tanks, which are slightly smaller; and very different sizes between left and right on the V6 installation?

J.R.

[tryphon]

Original: 80 liters (right 37lt, left 43lt).

[rutthenut]

OK, tried measuring the tanks to answer my own question.
With some very rough calculations, Hawk tanks come out as follows:

HF3000: Left 31 litres (6.8 gallons), Right 25 litres (5.5 gallons)
HF2000: Left 31 litres (6.8 gallons), Right 31 litres (6.8 gallons)

That is in 'real' Imperial gallons.
For American gallons, which are based on smaller pints (drinkers, take note), that seems to be 8.2 US gallons and 6.6 US gallons respectively.

Note that these are all based on inaccurate measurements, dodgy calculations and plenty of estimates for angles and tapered shapes. So expect them to be wrong!

Still useful as a rough guideline, I would suspect.

12 gallons capacity for the V6 setup, at 30mpg, should give a maximum range of 360 miles. Somehow, I think that is more than a little optimistic. And you cannot (safely) run down to the last gallon or two. Think I used to get 250 miles max, if I am thinking of the right car (Integrale couldn't get that far on a full tank).

The Hawk tank design could be 'enhanced' with further angles and extensions, which I considered when having mine made for the car. But the extra effort (and hence cost) in making those changes was not really justified if it only meant another gallon or two.


Cheers all,
John

[chris.richard]

Trypoon. i have a few sitting around in my garage but I am out of Japan until the 25th. It is can wait until then I can give you the full dimensions. Cheers Gary

Cheers Gary! :)
Not in that great a hurry. Measurements will be really useful.

[stratosphere]

I think this question has been raised before and maybe even its stupid but…..

As everyone, on both originals and replicas, are raising the weight distribution issue, has anyone experimented with front mounted petrol tank (s)? Did Lancia experiment with this?

I've calculated that the front compartment in my Stratos (Hawk) would easily carry around 40 litres or so without compromising (should be better really)radiator flow. (The spare has to go though)
This front mounted tank would have a great effect on balance as well as more accessible cooling /bigger air volume for the engine as well as the new placement would even benefit safety.

I did this on my own Pantera and the difference is big!
Even though the basic layout is similar between Stratos and Pantera, remember that the Pantera has much better weight distribution, lower centre of gravity and last but not least has longer wheelbase.

Luigi

[Martin K]

I think this question has been raised before and maybe even its stupid but…..

As everyone, on both originals and replicas, are raising the weight distribution issue, has anyone experimented with front mounted petrol tank (s)? Did Lancia experiment with this?

I've calculated that the front compartment in my Stratos (Hawk) would easily carry around 40 litres or so without compromising (should be better really)radiator flow. (The spare has to go though)
This front mounted tank would have a great effect on balance as well as more accessible cooling /bigger air volume for the engine as well as the new placement would even benefit safety.

I did this on my own Pantera and the difference is big!
Even though the basic layout is similar between Stratos and Pantera, remember that the Pantera has much better weight distribution, lower centre of gravity and last but not least has longer wheelbase.

Luigi

IMHO I think that the biggest handling issue with a front tank would be the CHANGE in weight distribution between a full tank and a nearly empty tank. Bluntly, the behaviour of the car would be more understeer with a full tank and more oversteer with an empty tank.

The approximately mid mounting point of the standard fuel tanks minimises handling variations with different fuel loads.

Martin

[tryphon]

Exactly, this is a known Porsche issue and this is why the Statos tanks are located mid-car and have an elongated shape rather than one large and flat tank with fuel moving sideways in it.

[stratosphere]

Good point you’re raising there.

Probably critical in a car that sensitive to changes as the Stratos is.

On the other hand the front tank Pantera made lap times on a Swedish circuit (similar to your Brands Hatch, or Knockhill with similar uphill, downhill and sharp corners) that was approx one second + faster than before. The car also felt more stable all the way from full tank to one third, giving me more confidence "on the limit".

I will not say that this went easy though.
Just moving around tanks upset the car at first and it needed a lot of recalibration on brake bias, dampers, wheel angles etc.
Not strange though, knowing that you went from a very delicate setup evolved over two years time to a completely new one.
Of course some other parameters has to change as well.
But I can assure you, I will not go back to the old setup!

But back to my question; has anyone (Lancia included) DONE this?
Anyone have experience of both layouts?

The issues and apprehensions raised here was the same in the Pantera community.
Martin K is also right on the spot when he says "more understeer with a full tank and more oversteer with an empty tank".
Note that this does NOT mean that the car will HAVE actual understeer or oversteer!
I.e. if your going from an oversteering car and towards more understeer, this means that the car will be more neutral!!
Also an empty tank is an empty tank, meaning that the car will behave more or less the same when empty (except for some minor sheet metal, pumps and fuel line weights.)

My Pantera conclusions are that the car went from speed-rubbing oversteer when full, and almost neutral when empty before tank alterations.
Now the car goes from some minor degree of understeer (if any) to neutral.
I do believe the changes ARE bigger now but the changes are plus and minus neutral balance, as opposed before the changes were smaller but "always" on the wrong side and further away from neutral balance. (and driver confidence).

In the Pork world they have experimented with fuel tank setups but they always come back to this front tank setup. This is also nowadays NOT longer a big issue in the Pork world except in the long distance runs. (Where everyone else is struggling with 120 litres or so in the beginning of the race to empty.)
In sprints this issue are almost gone as tires, dampers and other technologies has evolved.

But again I can be wrong, My Pantera findings will not be the same on a Stratos, and as always, real world figures beat any academic guesstimates.
But these discussions are necessary so more input are welcome.

Luigi

[tryphon]

I have not seen or heard of any original running with a relocated tank (even the Perez car kept the original position more or less, must be the only more or less original thing about it too).
You can always fit foam to the original tanks.

[vojx]

But back to my question; has anyone (Lancia included) DONE this?
Anyone have experience of both layouts?

YES I DID

Martin K is also right on the spot when he says "more understeer with a full tank and more oversteer with an empty tank".
Note that this does NOT mean that the car will HAVE actual understeer or oversteer!

the difference in handling between a full tank v nearly empty tank (about 8 gallons in my case) was not large. full, it would push just a little under hard acceleration on a bend, but the car would always drift quite neutrally independent of fuel load

I.e. if your going from an oversteering car and towards more understeer, this means that the car will be more neutral!!
Also an empty tank is an empty tank, meaning that the car will behave more or less the same when empty (except for some minor sheet metal, pumps and fuel line weights.)

the main problem i had with the front tank was it blocking the air coming through the rad - i'm now fitting a mid-mounted one between gearbox and fire wall. i will also have less surging with a tall, narrow tank v low, wide shoe box

P.S. Results may be different for a Transformer

[chris.richard]

The gallery still isn't accepting images, so I'll put these here. If they're not legible, I can email them to anybody who needs them.

[strat6v]

In my opinion, running a large bore balance pipe between the two tanks may not be the best thing. This would allow fuel to move across to the tank too easy on the opposite side whilst hard cornering. If running outboard tanks is a problem then why not fabricate a big single item that would sit behind a sloping bulkhead with some decent baffling and heatshielding? The tank could have a cutout in the centre to give more space near the exhaust, a tube through it-welded each end so the gear linkage would pass through etc, not really rocket science.You could even sit that standard pump and swirl pot(or two) inside. Might act as sound deadening also. Should be very little difference to the cars handling as the fuel load changes. This is my plan when work starts on number two. Oh, and while your busy chop out the rear deck and get rid of some heat at the same time. ;)

John.

[tryphon]

Is there really a need to reinvent the wheel?
The Stratos uses a sensible and relevant solution to the fuel location issue.
Many other cars use a very similar layout:
Dino 246
Ferrari 308, 288, 328, 348, 355, 360, F40, F50, Enzo, ...
God knows how many others.

[strat6v]

just my thoughts, If somebody didn't already have tanks for their replica then this would be another solution.

John.

[SUSIT]

Is there really a need to reinvent the wheel?
The Stratos uses a sensible and relevant solution to the fuel location issue.
Many other cars use a very similar layout:
Dino 246
Ferrari 308, 288, 328, 348, 355, 360, F40, F50, Enzo, ...
God knows how many others.


Yes there is in my humble opinion, The Stratos solution can hardly be called sensible!
Unless you are never going to drive your car then the risks of a fuel tank being ruptured in an accident are high, My accident with my Allora was no fault of mine, turning right the car behind me drove into my side at about 50mph. I dont believe any tank in the side position would stand that sort of impact intact.
John my new tank is not far off what you describe.
And just because other cars use a similar set up does not make it right or safe. Manufactures look for cheap solutions to these issues not what would be safest
All purely my opinion but based on exsperiance

[tryphon]

I hardly see the Enzo adopting "cheap solutions".
I hardly see the Stratos scoring more than 80 wins at International level when competition was not a gay sport using an insensible fuel tank layout solution.

[SUSIT]

Whats the number of wins at any level got to do with sensible positioning of the fuel tank,
They did not use a front roll cage is that sensible??

[tryphon]

It's got to do with the fact that sensible works and wins, self explainatory.

[SUSIT]

Lets just agree to disagree

[tryphon]

Makes sense. I'll forward your disagreement to the Ferrari developers, might give them a hint or two.

[SUSIT]

I want copyright and patent protection

[strat6v]

Ive got two things to say. F1-where's the tank? youve guessed it. Motogp, wheres the tank? right in the middle. I think they term it mass centralisation. As far as Hawk and Corse go then its the perfect place. There is room, Simpler to make, lower c of g, good baffling, cheaper than two tanks, reduced cabin temps, quieter. As far as reinventing the wheel then maybe for an original but not for a lookalike. Personally, my number 1 has saddle tanks but when number two breaks cover then one single ,central tank it will be. I don't give a tish that it's not original cos my Hawks never will be. If i wanted originality then i would buy an original. Rather have two lookalikies, a ducati and eat out once in a while. I'm POOR :o

[rutthenut]

Roger Donnan has a front-mounted tank of the sort discussed, with enough capacity for one hour of circuit racing. At 1 litre a minute, that'll be a 60 litre tank.

J.R.

[roger001]

;) Works for me.........

[stratosphere]

Hallo Vojx and Roger001.

Do you have any pics?
Also, do you have any comparable data from both setups, such as weight distribution, Lap times etcetera?

Will post pics from some of my possible tank layouts when I've done a cardboard mockup to get all of your opinions.

Susit, thanks for the idea
Really like the idea to keep it mid-mounted and centralized (slightly offset to the right, as mine is a LHD)

Tryphon
I fully understand your point, and maybe you are completely right but I am not entirely sure, so I will give it a go.

We have a saying here:
(Engineering) Knowledge is a curse!
Cause if you don't know, you don't try and therefore you will not end up in a mess.
When you do know, you will try, and eventually find yourself in deep s**t.
But then again it’s only the ones that try that end up with new solutions, new ideas and new cars. All those things that will be most satisfactory, not only for oneself.
I strongly believe that cars like the Stratos, the F40, the Pantera,…. are from people that has been really deep in it, but eventually succeeded.
Big respect for your deep knowledge about Stratos cars and maybe although you don’t agree with us tampering fools, you will at least understand us?

Luigi

[Martin K]

Handling:

The Montecarlo Turbo used a single front tank. On a circuit it is easy to build in some things to compensate for the change in weight distribution during the course of a race. In our case we have adjustable brake bias and an adjustable front anti-roll bar. This allows (with practice!) for the balance to be corrected. There are places on a circuit where the driver has time to make adjustments. If a driver has time to make adjustments on a rally stage then I would say he is not going quick enough!

Safety:

Current rules in motorsport would probably exclude the Stratos from most forms of modern competition on many grounds. It's not a question of whether the Stratos design was right or wrong - all car designs are a compromise, but no one should imagine the Stratos is perfect - it was just a great compromise.

For sure, by currents standards, the Stratos was a compromise in the area of safety. The designers might have thought the fuel tank location sensible - or more likely a sensible compromise - but engineers considering safety alone would not agree and the rules speak for themselves.

I'm not sure of the exact rules for every class of motorsport, but the fuel tank location and protection is certainly defined. The rules since the 70's have changed a great deal and are a lot more concerned with preventing fuel spillages if there is an impact. I think Lauda's accident was a huge turning point. Fuel tanks in F1 are between the driver and the engine, enclosed withing the monocoque and as a result have substantial protection. Designers were more than happy with low slung side tanks before the safety rules precluded them. Same goes for GT Prototypes and WRC cars have enclosed bag tanks, well inside the car to protect them in an accident.

What is allowed in road cars today is, in many case, simply not good enough, so I would never rely on the rule makers to protect me. It wasn't long ago I saw a TV program showing what happens to fuel tanks located under the boot floor, in some cars, when they are rear-ended at as little as 20 miles per hour. Terrifying.

Ferrari:

Weren't they struggling for quite a while before a certain Mr Schumacher came along an made them work to be successful again? I don't think anyone is infallible and history shows us that the best engineers and designers are not all born by Ferrari all the time.

[tryphon]

Yet all F1 cars have side tanks, the Enzo does too. What's in question here is the tank's safety itself, not its location. Why a tank would be safer in the front beats me.
What would be required by "modern" safety rules would be ATL bag, baffled and foamed tanks.
These can be located on the side with the same safety implications as if they were mounted elsewhere.
Front fuel tanks are a bad solution for obvious weight and handling reasons. If Porsche uses them it's because they don't have a choice (poor lads stuck with this antideluvian design). All modern race cars, I said race cars not ones derived from familly saloons use this implementation.

[Martin K]

Yet all F1 cars have side tanks, the Enzo does too. What's in question here is the tank's safety itself, not its location. Why a tank would be safer in the front beats me.
What would be required by "modern" safety rules would be ATL bag, baffled and foamed tanks.
These can be located on the side with the same safety implications as if they were mounted elsewhere.
Front fuel tanks are a bad solution for obvious weight and handling reasons. If Porsche uses them it's because they don't have a choice (poor lads stuck with this antideluvian design). All modern race cars, I said race cars not ones derived from familly saloons use this implementation.

Wrong tryphon - F1 cars do NOT have side tanks. The fuel tank must be contained in the Survival Cell (Technical Regulations Article 1.15 2006)

Also check article 6, in particular 6.1.1 6.1.2 and 6.1.3

[tryphon]

You're right but it's still in the middle. In any case you understand were I'm getting at don't you?
Losing the spare wheel, worsening the air flow, changing the car balance, not being a safer location (unless you provide a valid argument as to why it is safer in the front considering the front is only protected by the fiberglass whereas in the original position it is protected by steel, in the original cars at least), the fact that it would have to be a flat tank, all these points make me think the best solution is the current one.
This is not a "purist" view, just practical.

[SUSIT]

[QUOTE=tryphon]You're right but it's still in the middle. QUOTE]


Not sure what your getting at here! the original discussion was around the replacement of the original type/location of a stratos tank with a mid mounted central single tank.
Are you back pedaling here?
I agree you can place bag tanks, kevlar armoured pods in the original position but equally you could make a tank to sit inside the chassis with better protection and a less complex fuel system, less = greater reliability
IE the KISS principle so why wouldn't anybody want to?
Those of us planning any form of serious motorsport would be stupid if we did not consider alternatives.
In my case the scrutiner overseeing my build has stated unless the tanks/tank are inboard then i will in all probability not get a special stage log book.
Even in its day the Stratos was only available in a limited number of countries because it failed to meet 1970's safety standards (right or wrong?)
Even my 1974 glassfibre Clan Crusader managed to pass the 30mph crash test and yes it did have a front mounted fuel tank.

[tryphon]

Not sure what your getting at here! the original discussion was around the replacement of the original type/location of a stratos tank with a mid mounted central single tank.


The discussion was based on relocating the gas tank in the front, please read the posts above.


Even in its day the Stratos was only available in a limited number of countries because it failed to meet 1970's safety standards (right or wrong?)


This is referring to (frontal) crash testing. It failed (some people would pay the price of a car to get the crash test pictures). One more reason to avoid putting a gas tank at the front.

[Chris J]

'Just looking at where later group B cars had their fuel tanks:

037 in a similar (and if anything) a worse position than a Stratos, but they'll have been bag tanks at least.

RS200 and 6R4 in the best positon, central between the seats and engine/gearbox compartment

T16 in the front!, between the line of the front wheels and the footwells.

Delta S4 under the seats!


All the group B cars had the advantage over the Stratos of a longer wheelbase of course and better packaging because of that. The RS200 had another advantage being the only one that really did start with a clean sheet of paper.

[John]

In a previous thread initiated by the rally fire video footage there were very emotive postings. Clearly this is a subject which many of us find very serious. In my own opinion safety is absolutely paramount and having the tank/s inboard of the safety structure or rollcage either mid mounted or front mounted would never be optional. It would be mandatory (to my own requirements). I have no hesitation in again saying that this was a major factor in attracting me to the Corse in the first place.

[Sptwoman]

Any thoughts on my fuel system layout? I want to pick up some bits from Stoneleigh tom to complete so comments would be appreciated please

[strat6v]

Why a second tank balance pipe? the more pipes you have the more the fuel will move about in cornering. there will be enough capacity in the swirl pot for even the longest corner.

Overflows? Are they from a splash bowl outside of the actual tank?

You need a decent quality rollover and vent valve, no recycled 25 year old piece of placcy cack that won't work when you really want it to ;)

You'll need a fuel return pipe from the engine, back to the swirl pot too (so it swirls)

[roger001]

The second (injector) filter is ususlly fitted after the High pressure pump.

[rutthenut]

You may also want to look at fitting some form of 'fuel taps' to the outlets from the tanks, allowing you to remove a tank without having to drain the full system.

J.R.

[chris.richard]

You may also want to look at fitting some form of 'fuel taps' to the outlets from the tanks, allowing you to remove a tank without having to drain the full system.

J.R.

Very good point. Wish I had!

Will the swirlpot return flow into the balance pipe when the tanks are full? Too much pressure? Should it go in the top of a tank?

I have a vent pipe/overflow joining the tops of the tanks, and a roll-over / vent valve from one tank.