Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"The Court concurs with the Appellant's contention that
the event's supplementary regulations lacked a clear
description of how a "(fuel only)" service differed
from the description of "service" in NPRR section 7.10."

From testimonies on this forum and elsewhere, it appears
that Choiniere/Becker were the only team confused about
what "fuel only" means. For that very reason, all the ather
teams refrained from having their service crew add water to
their water injection at that service point and some carried
water for the water injection with them in the vehicle
and added water themselves, which is pemissible under
the rules.

"This issue of adding water to the fuel tank was clarified
by communication from Hyundai Motor America, not available to
the Protest Committee, which stated in part, 'The water is
blended with the gasoline before it reaches the fuel injector
and the fuel/water mixture is the [then] injected directly
into the combustion chamber....since there is no water level indicator, the water tank in the fuel cell must be topped off
each time the vehicle is fueled....it is part of the standard
refueling procedure.'"

I have inspected a number of vehicles with water injection
and I have built rally cars with water injection. All water
injection concepts and cars I am familiar with work differently
from the above description:
1. Water is injected into the combustion chamber at the same time
as fuel but through a separate device, an injector or
a simple jet, at a different pressure than fuel.
2. Water is therefore not blended with fuel before it reaches
a fuel injector.
3. The water tank for water injection is a separate tank, which is
never part of the fuel cell. In fact, installing the water tank
inside the fuel cell would serve no useful purpose regardless
of the way water is delivered into the combustion chamber.
(For instance, on the old Choiniere's Elantra, the water tank
was installed in the cockpit on the wall separating the cockpit
from the trunk space.)
4. Consequently, adding fuel and adding water for fuel injection
are two separate operations, totally independent of each other.

The Court of Appeals would have been well advised both to
familarize itself with these concepts and to inspect
Choiniere/Becker vehicle to be able able to confirm that
the water injection installed on that car works as described
in the letter from Hyundai Motor America.

Unless such inspection has been carried out, based on my
experience, a serious question remains about the accuracy
and veracity of the statement by Hyundai Motor America and,
moreover, there is a serious question about the technical
feasibility and workability of the concepts described by
Hyundai Motor America.

Ivan Orisek, M.Sc.(Eng.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
If the water is fuel, then the container used to dispense it, the tank it goes into, all of the lines, need to conform with the prep rules.

If the water is not fuel, then you shouldn't add it at a "fuel only" service.

Glenn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
"This issue of adding water to the fuel tank was clarified
by communication from Hyundai Motor America, not available to
the Protest Committee, which stated in part, 'The water is
blended with the gasoline before it reaches the fuel injector
and the fuel/water mixture is the injected directly
into the combustion chamber....since there is no water level indicator, the water tank in the fuel cell must be topped off
each time the vehicle is fueled....it is part of the standard
refueling procedure.'"



I don't see how the ruling committee could in good conscious make any decision without the complete set of details.

The simple phrase "not available to the Protest Committee" precludes any basis for a sound decision.

The comittee did not and does not have the facts.

Without the facts the committee cannot define water as "fuel"

Without being able to define water as fuel "fuel only" precludes water from being part of a "fuel only" service stop.


I don't have all the facts, but I cannot jump to the conclusion of the protest committe without the proper evidence. It does not appear that the team penelized has proven their case.

CONSISTENCY of the rules is what competitors want, I don't view the final decision as being consistent with previous precedent.

Yours in the sport,
Mike
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>"This issue of adding water to the fuel tank was clarified
>by communication from Hyundai Motor America, not available
>to
>the Protest Committee, which stated in part, 'The water is
>blended with the gasoline before it reaches the fuel
>injector
>and the fuel/water mixture is the injected directly
>into the combustion chamber....since there is no water level
>indicator, the water tank in the fuel cell must be topped
>off
>each time the vehicle is fueled....it is part of the
>standard
>refueling procedure.'"
>
>
>
>I don't see how the ruling committee could in good conscious
>make any decision without the complete set of details.
>
>The simple phrase "not available to the Protest Committee"
>precludes any basis for a sound decision.
>
>The comittee did not and does not have the facts.
>

Mike;

The Protest Committee was the one that ruled on the protest at the rally. The Appeals Board are the ones who ruled based on the additional information. The letter from HMA was supporting evidence for the appeal, but was not available at the initial protest.

Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Intentional or not.... if there weren't so many stupid rules rally could return to rallying rather nit-picking crap.

Recently some roundy round NASCAR driver was fined for cussing. Is this sissy s**t what rallyists want?

Get over this fuel/water/protest nonsense and move on to the important stuff like reducing the speeds, thus reducing the deaths.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Thank you for clarification.

So I am to read that the appeals committe has defined water as fuel for the team.

I have read this several times and still did not come to the conclusion that water is fuel in this situation.

I'll re-read.

Thanks,
Mike
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
>Thank you for clarification.
>
>So I am to read that the appeals committe has defined water
>as fuel for the team.
>
>I have read this several times and still did not come to the
>conclusion that water is fuel in this situation.
>
>I'll re-read.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike

The way it was explained to me was as follows:

The supps never defined a "fuel only" service, and neither does the rule book. HMA made an appeal based on their definition of fuel. Since there was no previous definition of fuel, there was no basis for saying that HMA's interpretation was wrong at the time.

In other words, it's a Clintonesque "that depends on you defination of (insert noun)". Since their was no official defination of fuel, HMA was free to make their own.

Anyways, that's what I was told. I won't comment other than to say it's a stretch.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
But if it WAS fuel, it must be in approved FUEL containers, separated by a fire proof bulkhead, all fuel lines passing the pass compartment to be of metal or Aeroquip ........

If they are goiung to be legalistic and frankly Bullsheeet, then they should expect the same strict interpertations.

Whole thing was shameless all round.

John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hello
I am just curious what Hyundai Motor America would know about what a mitsubishi engine would need as i beleive it is just a hyundai shell .mitsubshi motor and transmission and subaru back end

Confused
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>My understanding though was that it was for the intercooler
>sprayer, not water injection, did anyone actually check to
>see where the water went??
>Leon

It was explained to me (by people who should know) that this was water injection (i.e. mixed with the fuel at some point prior to combustion). The tank is in the fuel cell and is pressure filled -there is no way of telling its level (read the HMA submission for details). This was, I believe, the British-built car (the US-built car is different in some aspects). AFAIK the motors are now Hyundais - weren't these cars (or their predecessors) used for engine development?

Had it been an intercooler sprayer, I really doubt if they would have filled it. Similarly, had it not required a pressure fill, they would probably not done it at service (but would have poured the contents of water bottles carried on board into it).

The bottom line is that you had some very experienced people look at the appeal submissions and make a ruling. They felt that there was merit to the appeal.

Adrian
 

·
your other left, you idiot
Joined
·
3,909 Posts
stupid supps

The real question here is, WHY did MFR supps make that a fuel only stop?

Why not, "anything you can do in 5 minutes", like most other rallies would do? This was NOT SCCA, nor Topeka, that published the original rule.

press on,
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
183 Posts
>
>It was explained to me (by people who should know) that this
>was water injection (i.e. mixed with the fuel at some point
>prior to combustion). The tank is in the fuel cell and is
>pressure filled -there is no way of telling its level (read
>the HMA submission for details). This was, I believe, the
>British-built car (the US-built car is different in some
>aspects). AFAIK the motors are now Hyundais - weren't these
>cars (or their predecessors) used for engine development?

>
>Adrian

This is from Libra Racing's website:

Engine: Hyundai Beta Turbo (Hyundai Motor Corp., 4 cylinder, 16 valve 2.0-liter; turbocharged; water injected with special intercooler; turbo and electronic controls by Autronic)

Link:
http://www.libraracing.com/tiburon6.htm

This has been on the website for a while.

Rob
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top