with a 34mm restrictor/proper tuning you should be able to get worst case (when I say worst case like mega bang bang and driving with a lot of WOT and LFB) like .8 L / km, best case in the low .75s (but probably closer to .8 in the cold) and like .25 down to .18 L /km for transit (but you can drive very cautiously to use less)
i think the cars regs have max distances for stage/transit km before refueling. This would be on the limit (or should be).
so like .. if there is no transit (or like 500m, or a refuel right before the stage) then one should be able to do it but it will be close, with an 80L tank (surge may be an issue in poorly designed tank/pumps). I would say, that I would do it. Just plan a bit ahead.
Using > than .8 hardly ever happens and with the twistiness and ice I would say you would use slighty less... like in the high .7s. And brimming the tank might net you an extra litre. We run these numbers pretty close when the comp is tight. I won't say where but on a very important event somewhere I came in to service with < 1 L of fuel !!
the longest one I have run is 56km in rally GB and NZ
Some guys run their performance rally cars in the old YSWR series events that are now part of ORRC, e.g. Snowy Safari and OWR. They often run 180-200km before the first fuel stop. Granted, that is max 90km/h speed plus some transit sections so it isn't anywhere near the consumption rate of a closed performance rally stage but even so, there have been DNS's from entries as soon as they heard how long it was to the first fuel stop. Even in ORRC, I think it is against the rules to bring fuel cans with you.
Speaking as a worker, 100km sounds very long. Egan Creek at Pines is long enough at 26km or so! I can't imagine something four times that length. You'd need a large crew just for that stage all day by the time they took control of the road in the morning to when sweep finished winching all the permit-less tree harvesters. How many TCs will they have?
Yup, Max distance between fueling is 150Km ... if the top cars don't 'normally' have the range ... then they haven't prepared the car for the rules ...
Safety plan calls for radio points no further apart than 7Km, and tehre are MAJOR intersections that wold allow ambulance access (positioning) at the beginning, 1/3 and 2/3 distances.
At the Kananaskis regional we ran a 34Km stage in two directions ... and I felt we were just getting into a rythm ... Alain ... plan on being on that stage for almost an hour an a half!our first leg was 140Km, 60K of that being transit ... we didn't loose anyone ... to fuel issues.
a 100K stage .... Hmmm back to tinking about running that event. ;-)
yes but typically, the rules as it ws written was not counting on it all being stages.
the rule actually should be changed to be more realistic as in "150 km between refuels with max 100k stage" which for example, is how the FIA modified its rules after first starting with a rule similar to the CARS rule (which was probably inspired by the original FIA rule though I wasnt around at the time).
to be honest to do more than 100km stage you need more than 80 L tanks. That is 'special build' like Safari-spec. To do 150 km stage you would need a 120L tank which is including no reserve ! This is just a loophole that no one has exploited. 100km or even 95 should be the max. That being said, like I said before, i would go for the 101k stage anyhow. If you run out of fuel, well, its not like you didn't know and could have lifted off. but the rule not limiting stage to 100km - it is a mistake IMHO.
Has an organizer, my biggest concern would be to cross my finger and hope nothing happen in there. If a car get stuck and block the road or any other reason why you need to cancel the stage, you actually throw away almost half of the entire rally distance...
don't get me wrong, I like long stages, I would definitely go for the 101km stage as is, all I am saying is that the wording of the CARS rule should be re-considered, or else everyone is going to potentially have to go out and special order > 80/90 L tanks (which is what I beleive everyone is using these days). Right now anyone can make a 150km stage if they want to. And that being said, if the organizers propose a 150km stage, we would still have to do it. *I think it would be cooler to have an in-stage 'hot fuel drop' manned by driver/codriver* for those who cant make it or think they wont. Nice and safe too (hehe). Maybe it is a way to introduce some chance for the more fuel efficient cars !!
?Maybe it is a way to introduce some chance for the more fuel efficient cars !!?
Environmental issues are the hot agenda as we all now. I did the first step?
For all the executive lurkers on this forum???
To get the ?federal express? for rallies is not going to be as easy as before.
Introducing chances for more fuel efficient rally cars is a great idea. This will let other North America manufacturers follow Toyota Canada (Echo). Besides that, finally the ?new? people will be able afford to built a real entry rally car. This is the only chance to see rally in Canada start to see being notice by media and Mr.L could see start making a real money.
It looks like not BLUE but GO GREEN is going to be the highlight of the 2004 Rally Season?
I don't know how remote or inaccessible this particular location is, but looking at the map wouldn't it be possible to split this stage into two at about the half way point where there is an access road at "Lac Usborne" and insert a "gas only service" between the finish and the start controls? Perhaps the organizers could arrange to make a truck available to crews to transport the crews' fuel containers on to that location and then the competitors could refuel themselves between the stages.
1. Should be fun
2. Safety issues (note that this is actually the link-up of three separate stages from last year; note also that this is the real backwoods of the ZEC and it took us all night to get our car out last year)
3. The Good Old Days and the Safari had massive stages
4. There is a rule, although this technically doesn't infringe it (although the 150 that we have hit before (at Quebec) has been a more even mix of stage and transit).
5. A number of cars probably cannot make it. I'm glad Pat chimed in. Since richening up my mixture to stop detonating engines, and with my GpA dogbox and a 65L tank (with starvation issues), I can't make this stage. With a lean mixture and a normal gearbox we used to get 6mpg on stage and 18mpg on transit. Now we're at maybe 4mpg/12mpg (tell that to the EPA). As Pat notes, I'd need a medium long-range tank - maybe 90L and we'd still be on the margin.
Know what it costs to change a fuel cell? My ATL tank has a retail value of something like $3500US (fortunately it came with my car). The standard cell tank fabricated by TAD for most US Evos is considerably more economical but a fabrication and swap would still be thousands of dollars, and even then it would have to be a custom cell to carry at least 80L and probably more. I suspect that Frank, Sylvain, Antoine, the open class Lachute car, and some G2 cars cannot do the stage with their current tanks. I would guess that both open Subarus would have trouble too, although Pat of course is the only one who can say.
So the bottom line is this: a 101km stage is a cool idea and I'd love to do it, but too many leading competitors can't do it. Also I think the possible safety logistics and car-fetching/unblocking needs make it a risky prospect. So good for the organizers for proposing it, but I think it should be modified and broken into at least two, maybe three.
Flirting with the laws of hydrocarbon consumption.