I was looking into the 4 gallon minisprint fuel cell that RCI builds, http://www.minisprintfuelcell.com/, that was referenced by racerman600's post. This tank has been approved by a number of the tracks and organizations according to their site. However, I spoke to a individual that attended the meeting for the U6SA and supposedly they did not approve this tank. Mike Dicely's post on the meeting results state that a bladder is a rubber inner with a plastic outer shell, which would rule out the use of this tank.

I would like to hear more information in regards to whether or not this tank will be allowed to be used. It is my understanding that tracks don't need to adopt all the U6SA rules.

I was at the meeting and the tank in question was displayed. The tank was not approved because it didn't contain a rubber inner liner. Vote was about 75% against -25% for. Most of the tracks in Pa and NJ have adopted the
U6SA rules to try to keep in align with each other further allowing the sport to grow by moving in the same direction.

You know it is amazing to me we have a manufacturer of fuel cells with "over 30 years of experience" not being approved by a relatively new organization! It looks like a partisan decision beneficial to who? ISO 9001 means a lot as you have to meet some very high standards. These tanks are mounted inside of the frame so the chances of the tank being punctured or damaged in any way is extremely minimal at best. Now I wonder whether the cells approved by U6SA will be accepted by the other tracks? Oh, not ISO 9001 approved!



"For over 30 years Fuel Safe has manufactured fuel bladders and fuel accessories for each and every form of racing. Our fuel bladders are approved for use in all types of motor sports from hobby stock to NASCAR, micro sprints to the Outlaws, buggies to trophy trucks, the most classic vintage cars to the highest performance road racers, as well as IRL and Champ cars.

Our complete line of fuel bladders, fuel cells and racing accessories are built utilizing only the highest quality materials available, whether it be the strongest most advanced ballistic materials or the highest grades of aluminum. Fuel Safe is the only racing bladder manufacturer to achieve and maintain the ISO-9001: 2000 quality certification. We make every effort to ensure that the products that you receive from Fuel Safe consistently offer you the highest levels of protection and performance available." :confused:

The question has been asked several times, and has been ignored by those that made the decision... What is the specific criteria used to determine that a bladder is the only solution??? What crash worthiness specs were used to decide that a bladder would provide the protection required, and an enclosed fuel cell would not? "Because I said so" is not good enough. We all deserve a staightforward, technically supported answer to this question. The RCI fuel cells are approved by ASCS, and many midwestern tracks and organizations. Why not the northeast?

ISO:2001 has NOTHING to do with the safety of their products. Just that they have a 'quality control' system, and maintain documents that they say they do. All ISO companies are this way.

The tank in question does not have a bladder, and that is what has been spec'd by the rules. there is a good reason why bladders cost more, its an added level of safety above just a plastic tank. And with that you can say that bladder lined tanks are safer than just the plasic tanks.

Hypermotive:

I dont want to argue but your saying that a steel fuel cell mounted inside the frame with the plastic/fiberglass tail cover would not be suffecient enough to be safe according to the new specs of racing? This not only would save drivers/owners money but may also not decrease the car count in the upcoming season. I think if you wreck hard enough to puncture a fiberglass/plastic shell then mangle the frame enough to puncture the METAL FUEL CELL then I dont think a bladder is going to help out any!! JMO

Not enough profit selling the RCI????????????

Actually I have a 6 gallon ATL Fuel Cell installed just behind the rear axle, and covered over by a tail shell. It would take a tremendous hit as there is a crush area of two feet and then you are into the car frame also protecting the fuel cell where it is now located----ATL is the world's oldest and largest producer of safety fuel cells for race cars, rally cars, stunt cars, sports cars, street rods, off-road vehicles and race boats. ATL's crashworthy, non-exploding gas tanks meet or exceed one or more of the following crash-resistance specifications: FIA SPEC FT3, FIA SPEC FT3.5, FIA SPEC FT5, USAC-1000, NASCAR 2000, CRFS-102 and SFI 32.1. Now I wonder if it will meet the current U6SA specification as it currently is written? Then we have the New Jersey police requiring a metal barrier between the driver and fuel cell tank, and a number of other additional safety requirements. It is a tough deal deciding on a set of rules everybody would be satisfied with for sure.

Hypermotive:

I dont want to argue but your saying that a steel fuel cell mounted inside the frame with the plastic/fiberglass tail cover would not be suffecient enough to be safe according to the new specs of racing? This not only would save drivers/owners money but may also not decrease the car count in the upcoming season. I think if you wreck hard enough to puncture a fiberglass/plastic shell then mangle the frame enough to puncture the METAL FUEL CELL then I dont think a bladder is going to help out any!! JMO

Please re-read my posts. You are making a conclusion that can't be made based on what I am saying. I am saying that a BLADDER is called out in the rules. If the tank in question does not have a 'bladder', it does not meet the rules as they stand. I have not, and am unwilling to step up and 'guess' what non-bladder tank out there will hold up as well as a bladder tank. It's not my job, or within my experience to decide that.

What I am getting to is that it would be worthwhile to decide on a test/safety specification that all fuel cells must conform to, not just the shell must have a 'bladder'. i am sure there are people out there already rubber cementing roofing rubber together to construct a bladder. This is not within the intent of the rule, actually very much the opposite.

Now, unless the rule gets amended before the beginning of the season, this is what we have to work with. We all knew this at the end of last year. Most people have no prolems with begging, borrowing and stealing to buy a replacement engine for the one they toasted the night before. The bladder is cheaper than an engine (most anyway). This is what it takes to race these cars as of 2009. There are 2 choices, conform to the rules and race, or choose not to race. I really doubt that car counts will fall purely due to the requirement of a bladder.

The point is that this rule was apparently made with absolutly no data, specifications, or engineering behind it. If any of this occured, why won't anyone who made this decision enlighten us with the details? I guarantee that companies like Fuel Safe and ATL etc. know tons more about fuel tank safety and requirements than anyone that voted on this rule(or anyone on this board, including me). Did anyone think to call them and get a professional opinion that was supported by data and engineering? Would Fuel Safe, design and market an SFI rated fuel cell system designed specifically for Micros that was unsafe? So why can't we use it??? I am a big believer in added safety, but it needs to be done in an intelligent manner. The rule as it stands will ABSOLUTELY reduce car counts. Most teams I know are barely hanging on, the poor economy makes it even tougher. When tracks see 30-50% less cars next year, I hope they don't wonder why.

The big reason why the metal shell tank was not passed was due to the fact that this would allow the few side tank cars out there to wrap their tanks in sheet metal and pass tech. It is not that that particular tank was thought to be unsafe, it is that allowing tanks to be wrapped in metal, and thought to be safe, that had most people voting against it. How could we write the rule to allow that tank and mandate where it is mounted (that tank mounted outside the frame would be disaster) without allowing some one to do something really unsafe that technically would have to be allowed.

It may make some manufacturers mad, but in the end it will make figuring out what is allowed and what is not allowed, a lot easier. The way the rule is written now makes it cut and dry.

This whole process is a group effort, there were no "experts" on hand to defend either position. If you would like to see this rule changed, write up a suggested rule change and it will be discussed at the next meeting. Also if you feel you are an expert, we would welcome you to come and educate us as an association at the next meeting.

Also let me add that I voted against the bladder rule as I think the cost is too high, and there are better ways to reduce the risk of fire. So don't blame me for trying to "increase profit" by this rule. I and all other manufactures also voted for the tire rule, to help increase car counts and to keep racers racing longer.

I understand frustration in this matter. I was actually surprised that more information was not passed along to the correct people before the meeting. This cell and others might have been considered more if a rep from any of these companies would have worked on getting their information out.

As far as profit margins go... I know who voted for what during the meeting and it didn't seem to me that many of the manufacturers had their own agenda. Remember as a group we all had a vote if it was only decided by 1 vote either way that was the way it went. We need to keep this in mind for the next meeting. Everyone needs to do their homework. See what the issues are and supply pertinent information to help us make the best decisions possible. If anyone believes whole heartedly that this cell is the way to go then get signatures asking for an amendment. Do some work to make what you believe in a reality.

I myself have no problem with a cell of this type.

I do worry about a bigger race with 40-50 laps though. I am not sure how this cell would work for the racers that use it for a race like that.

Okay I can understand that wrapping a tank with token sheet metal wouldn't be acceptable. However there are specifications dictated by NASCAR, Formula 1, etc. concerning a properly designed fuel bladder cells. My own personal experience with fuel bladders was as a crew chief on jet fighters/bombers and rubber type bladders have their own issues like they can chafe from vibration and puncture easier than other materials used today.

It is a matter of location of the fuel bladder cell within the confines of the race car cage which provides additional protection. Then there is a required thickness and strength of the shell that surrounds the bladder. Metal is better than fiberglass for sure. We see today a movement towards carbon fiber which is very light, but will shatter easier than metal.

My suggestion would be take a hard look at all the specifications written by other sanctioning bodies, talk to the manufacturers, look at the causes of existing tank problems, and then make any modifications prior to the start of the 2009 racing season.

My suggestion would be take a hard look at all the specifications written by other sanctioning bodies, talk to the manufacturers, look at the causes of existing tank problems, and then make any modifications prior to the start of the 2009 racing season.

I think you have made some very good points. It will take someone like you to do what you are suggesting above to make this change happen. Get the tests and specs to one of the reps. Get some information from the manufactures. Right down how that modification should read.

I think it is great to see any involvement in from the racers. This is all of our sport. The more input we have the more we can form rules and racing that better suites us as a whole.

These are all good arguments going on and I am glad that they are because this problem of our current setups ,(not being very good safety wise ), is very troubling to me since I do not ever get into a race car (except to drive around the yard) and don't want anyone to suffer the pain of being burned . One other thing that I am hoping for in using these solutions in our 270 and 125 two strokes would be at least a 5 gallon capacity for these fuel guzzlers or it's back to the fuel stops . Thanks to everyone working on this situation . Ernie Gardina

I dont believe the CHT and the Exhaust temps are high enough for a fire to even ignite, the flash temp is not high enough. I asked this question a while ago, due to the bladder frustration. I forget who answered, but that was the response.


These are all good arguments going on and I am glad that they are because this problem of our current setups ,(not being very good safety wise ), is very troubling to me since I do not ever get into a race car (except to drive around the yard) and don't want anyone to suffer the pain of being burned . One other thing that I am hoping for in using these solutions in our 270 and 125 two strokes would be at least a 5 gallon capacity for these fuel guzzlers or it's back to the fuel stops . Thanks to everyone working on this situation . Ernie Gardina

True but oil fires are quite common from engines blowing. And a chain rubbing on a frame will spark.....

Im not 100% sure but I would think that it takes morethen a spark to ignite oile. On the other hand I believe a spark can ignite alcohol fuel. Therefore if a spark ignites alcohol quicker and the chain is in the rear YOU MUST HAVE PUNCHTURED something to make it have the ability to ignite.

Im not 100% sure but I would think that it takes morethen a spark to ignite oile. On the other hand I believe a spark can ignite alcohol fuel. Therefore if a spark ignites alcohol quicker and the chain is in the rear YOU MUST HAVE PUNCHTURED something to make it have the ability to ignite.


Oil fires happen when engines blow, hence 500+ degrees on the failed componets and oil+oil vapor = fire. I did not imply that a spark will light oil, but fuel yes. And WITHOUT a bladder, the tail is more likely to leak. That is where the spark comes in.

And I have to mention that there was a fuel leak in the sidewinder class yesterday. I can't speak for the accident damage, but would a bladder have kept the leak from happening? Did anything PUNCTURE the tank?

I understand frustration in this matter. I was actually surprised that more information was not passed along to the correct people before the meeting. This cell and others might have been considered more if a rep from any of these companies would have worked on getting their information out.

As far as profit margins go... I know who voted for what during the meeting and it didn't seem to me that many of the manufacturers had their own agenda. Remember as a group we all had a vote if it was only decided by 1 vote either way that was the way it went. We need to keep this in mind for the next meeting. Everyone needs to do their homework. See what the issues are and supply pertinent information to help us make the best decisions possible. If anyone believes whole heartedly that this cell is the way to go then get signatures asking for an amendment.


Were representatives and information on hand from the bladder system that WAS approved to show why that one should be chosen and the others not? If not why was that one approved and the others ignored? Not being there it is difficult to speak as to what happened, and I don't pretend to be an expert because I am far from it, it is just hard to believe with all of the intelligent people who attended that meeting that a correctly worded rule couldn't have been put into place to allow the alternative JAZ and ACI cells.

If there was a such a big concern that guys would try to get around buying the more expensive bladders doesn't that tell you that maybe guys are already pinching pennies and offering a less expensive option would be a GOOD idea?

Jason M.--The problem now is that according to the way the by-laws read, no ammendment can be made until next meeting, which is the end of next season. At that point it doesn't much matter what is approved, everyone already has to spend the $1000 dollars if they want to run the 09 year. (Although I suppose it will allow newcomers to spend less.-which is good)

As far as Mike Dicely goes, I can personally speak that he isn't trying to profit from this. Last year at Lanco I saw him looking at the Jaz cell mounted on one of the other cars and said that was a good idea and needed to be considered as an option.

Let me be clear guys, I don't argue this point because I want to aggrivate anyone or that I want people to be unsafe, or even that I won't be racing next year, because I have been blessed by the Lord with what I need to do this. I also think the U6SA is a great idea, and kudos to everyone who makes it happen. However it pains me to watch some of our "family" of racers who already are on edge budget wise get pushed out because we don't consider their needs as well. Forgive me for badgering the point or if I am a pain in the neck I'd just like to see everyone be able to race if they want to. I realize racing is an expensive hobby, not everyone can do it, and none of us race to make money; but that's kinda the point, we do this because we LOVE it and we should do what we can to help everyone who loves it to have a shot at it.

All good points.... Hopefully this won't hurt the car counts for next year. Who knows? Racing isn't ever going to be a cheap venue. However I do think it could make some people look at different racing classes and divisions. I personally think that it might have been more productive to focus on some other means of safety that would have been cheaper and more productive.



=Jesusraceteam;8531]Were representatives and information on hand from the bladder system that WAS approved to show why that one should be chosen and the others not? If not why was that one approved and the others ignored? Not being there it is difficult to speak as to what happened, and I don't pretend to be an expert because I am far from it, but it is hard to believe with all of the intelligent people who attended that meeting that a correctly worded rule couldn't have been put into place to allow the alternative JAZ and ACI cells.

If there was a such a big concern that guys would try to get around buying the more expensive bladders doesn't that tell you that maybe guys are already pinching pennies and offering a less expensive option would be a GOOD idea?

Jason M.--The problem now is that according to the way the by-laws read, no ammendment can be made until next meeting, which is the end of next season. At that point it doesn't much matter what is approved, everyone already has to spend the $1000 dollars if they want to run the 09 year. (Although I suppose it will allow newcomers to spend less.-which is good)

As far as Mike Dicely goes, I can personally speak that he isn't trying to profit from this. Last year at Lanco I saw him looking at the Jazd cell mounted on one of the other cars and said that was a good idea and needed to be considered as an option.

Let me be clear guys, I don't argue this point because I want to aggrivate anyone or that I want people to be unsafe, or even that I won't be racing next year, because I have been blessed by the Lord with what I need to do this. I also think the U6SA is a great idea, and kudos to everyone who makes it happen. However it pains me to watch some of our "family" of racers who already are on edge budget wise get pushed out because we don't consider their needs as well. Forgive me for badgering the point or if I am a pain in the neck I'd just like to see everyone be able to race if they want to. I realize racing is an expensive hobby, not everyone can do it, and none of us race to make money; but that's kinda the point, we do this because we LOVE it and we should do what we can to help everyone who loves it to have a shot at it.

**The acceptance of these rules is still in the hands of the tracks.**

I am aware of 1 track that has intentions to accept all of the rules except that of the bladder.
Unfortunatly this is going to segragate the racers in yet the same way as all the different engine rules did in the past, if tracks do go different directions.
At the meeting Mike Dicely did bring out the RCI unit (that he bought) and tried to offer it as an option, many were interested in it. Unfortunatly the majority voted in favor of a "plastic tank with rubber inner liner" (at least that is what i recall)
I also recall a peice of this discussion pertain to the definition of what a bladder was supposed to be. The RCI tank had hard plastic innards with a metal shell. And that a rubber inner liner inside a plastic shell was what perople were referring to as a bladder.
I am not against the tank, so don't take it that way, I actually voted against the bladders and our other rep voted for it, since our racers (BRIDGEPORT) were at exactly a 50/50 split on the topic.
You have the option to talk to your track.
Personally I feel the tracks votes (track owners) won this topic over, everyone else seemed fairly split on the topic.

Thanks for the info Rick.

I agree, we don't want to segregate the class, that would defeat the purpose of the U6SA and everyone who has put so much effort into it. Certainly that isn't my intent by posting on here...but perhaps to help everyone be a little more aware of the 'limited budget guys' involved in the sport if another topic like this comes up again in the future. Unfortunately once something like this gets implemented it is often too late to change it later....which is the situation we are in.

I'm sure all of this was brought up at the meeting and hashed around for a few hours, the rest of us just weren't there to enjoy it :) LOL But we do appreciate everyone who is taking time to go to the meetings to try to make this sport even better. I guess we will at times differ on how we feel it is best to do that, but if we can work together in the end we can make this sport great for everyone! Keep up the great effort guys.

if all the tracks are 4 bladders because of insurance y are the other classes 270 / 1000 having to run them

The 3R Sidewinder that dumped the fuel on the track at trailways this past weekend did so do to the fact that the car landed on the rear nerf bar pushing everything forward causing the lower tank tail mounts to punch and rip holes on both sides of the tank. The upper side however only bent the mounting bar. Maybe how the lower part of the tank is mounted would be something to look at. I believe that had the lower part of the tank been able to move like the top it wouldnt have lost any fuel. And maybe had it been a bladder tank it wouldnt have happened either dont know but it sure does make sense to allow the tail tank some flexability and doesnt look like it would be to hard to do.

Construction & mounting of tail tanks are issues no doubt along with location when it comes to overall safety. Yes, a bladder type tank inside of the tail shell that is free to move wouldn't have ruptured as easily. Then locating the cell within the confines of the car frame further enhances safety. Issues the car owner needs to individually address for certain.

I have no problem with this particular rule, but it does bring up the question, where does it end? pretty soon, we will need to replace belts each year, have helmets with the newest SNELL rating, have our HANS devices re-certified or buy new ones every two years, suits must be no less than 2 years old, all braided lines, and full containment seats. WHERE DOES IT END? we could go on like this forever, it WILL kill our sport

I personally believe in the 2009 season with some tracks breaking away from the U6SA rules starting with the bladder tank rule and even allowing older dated fully modified engines to run outside of the existing U6SA engine rules to remain somewhat competitive with the newest engines for the sake of survival of the individual race tracks. That is my personal opinion entirely!

There has been a lot of very good discussion about this rule. After reading all of the posts for and against the rule, and after reading the rule as it is written, I think the U6SA organization needs to get back together soon and consider re-writing it.
There have been enough points made in favor of the other forms of fuel cells manufactured by companies such as ATL, RCI, Fuel Safe, and I would have to even add those made by Jazz, as potential safe alternatives to the internal bladder style tanks to warrant a re-evaluation.
The rule, as it is written, is in fact very vague. As it reads, I could take a basketball bladder and place it in the plastic tank shell and let it float on top of the fuel. Yes, I know it's stupid and I know that it doesn't at all fit the intent of the rule, but I use this example only to reveal the need to at least re-evaluate the rule.
Mikes statement about the organization not allowing the tanks merely wrapped in metal because it would allow someone to take a plastic side tank and wrap that in metal, and comply with the rule, reinforces my point.
Also, the onus should not be put on any individual to present a case that proves that these other fuel cells are an equivalent to the bladder style tanks, just as there were no experts to present the case for the bladder style in the first place.
All I'm saying is, that by using some common sense, the rule can be written such that some of, or all of these cells could be used by mounting them in a safe way, in order to give the racers all a fair choice in this while maintaining costs and providing adequate saftey.

I think that by designating a specific rating that the fuel tank must comply to, all confusion would be removed. Most U.S organizations use an SFI rating to ensure that the safety equipment complys with a known, tested standard. This includes helmets, suits, gloves, fuel tanks, roll cages etc. As far as fuel tanks go, there are three different ratings used....SFI 28.1 is a safety rated fuel tank (such as the heavy plastic JAZZ tanks) that are used in cars where the likelyhood of a direct impact is very low. An SFI 28.2 is a crash resistent fuel cell (such as the Fuel Safe cell designed for micro sprints) that has a metal enclosure to help protect the plastic tank. An SFI 32.1 , is a bladder system, that is used for extrely high speed impacts, or where the tank is poorly protected from impacts. The bladders must also be recertified every 5 years, because they chaff inside the tank, and get weak spots that could fail. I sincerly hope that the US6A can use this information to immediatly amend the fuel tank rule to include both an SFI 28.2 rating, and an SFI 32.1 rating as being acceptable fuel tanks for 2009 and up. We all appriciate the efforts being made to improve the safety and competitiveness of the sport. Thanks

I contend that even the 28.1 rated Jazz tank, mounted solidly under the plastic tail shell (not fiberglass), would be an order of magnitude better than the plastic tail tank or side tank used today with all of it's mounting holes and associated hardware protruding directly through the tank and into the volume of fuel within.

I am going to split this thread and move the relevant portion to the U6SA forum as the threads starters intent was a new product announcement.

i for one will sell my 600 if lindas makes me get another cell. that will be 2 less cars for 2009.

What if the rules were worded seperately for side mount and tail tank mount tanks? Would that help in allowing a cheaper alternative without sacrificing safety?