Means nothing to the thread, but, have you tried putting the hatch onto the tilt tray backwards, would it scrape then ? Both spoiler and tank ...bugger just thought of another thing.
theres no way my car could go up the tilt tray like that with front spoiler on.
because the front spolier sticks outside the front departure angle.surely i would take my front spolier out before the droptank,whilst going up inclines.
i had a engineer inspection 2day
Started by
_ass308_
, Jun 05 2009 07:51 PM
138 replies to this topic
#51
_Pallbag_
_Pallbag_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 11:29 AM
#52
_Baronvonrort_
_Baronvonrort_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 11:41 AM
However that being said, I can also understand the engineer's point of view and the reasons for the regulations. This worst-case scenario would also be the engineer's concern.
Its in black and white as far as legality with departure angle so with people getting lawyers when things go wrong the engineer probably doesnt want anything to come back and bite him so i can understand why it was knocked back.This engineer did not write the regulations he only signs off if it does comply.
As for the worst case scenario the engineer might also consider tank clearance will be reduced with passengers in the back,full tank of juice and maybe a few cartons of beer in the back as well while going over speed bumps and into driveways and will the tank still clear the ground with a flat tyre as well!
Edited by Baronvonrort, 07 June 2009 - 11:42 AM.
#53
Bart
-
- Members
-
- 2,559 posts
Shit a brick
- Location:Sydney
- Car:LJ Torana
- Joined: 20-November 05
Posted 07 June 2009 - 11:42 AM
You know I was just thinking that, the rear skirt on some HSV Commo's hang a bit, they could use a tank which hangs like dogs balls. This is frustratingly unfair. Theres a VS Commo up my street with a kind of drop tank (well it hangs a little lower than normal) he wouldnt have a engineering prob because of his rear skirt.You have to wonder, because surely a late model Commodore (as it comes from the factory) wouldn't pass such a test without the low hanging plastic bumper...?
What about a cover for the tank, would that count as permanent body work?
#54
Bart
-
- Members
-
- 2,559 posts
Shit a brick
- Location:Sydney
- Car:LJ Torana
- Joined: 20-November 05
Posted 07 June 2009 - 11:44 AM
Could you live with a custom rear fiberglass skirt on the back of your Tori? Just for engineering purposes only, then when passed i would gently demad you burn the skirt. 
#55
_mowie_
_mowie_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 12:37 PM
If you want it done, just fit the standard tank and get it passed then change it over.... Engineer is in the clear as it was not there when he inspected. Onus is then on you. I doubt any people get pulled up by the cops to check if their drop tank is on eng certificate.
Tom
Tom
#56
_mowie_
_mowie_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 12:44 PM
I dont think you should be allowed even with a skirt. the fibreglass will just bend and the tank will still scrape. I think the "permanent bodywork" is relating to structural panels. i.e if you were reversing down a driveway, your car would beach itself on the rear sill, lifting the wheels off the ground before any damage is done to the tank.
#57
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 07 June 2009 - 01:06 PM
Optional body skirts, tow bars and modified panels are not "OEM Permanent Body Work" and therefore have no affect on the departure angle. However I think a factory bumper with intergrated skirt would qualify as OEM Permanent Body Work.
You would have to cut along the top of the tube.
The Departure angle on a LX torana will be measured from the bottom of the beaver panel to the the point where the tyre contacts the road. The top of the tube in your photo would be close to the departure angle. If you imagine lifting the car at the front on a flat road the "OEM Permanent Body Work" must contact the road before the fuel tank.
ls2lxhatch,theres not really much to come off the tank.if u cut along the bottom of the tube,u would loose 50mm along the bottom,maybee10-15mm off the front verticle edge.to form the new angle.
You would have to cut along the top of the tube.
The Departure angle on a LX torana will be measured from the bottom of the beaver panel to the the point where the tyre contacts the road. The top of the tube in your photo would be close to the departure angle. If you imagine lifting the car at the front on a flat road the "OEM Permanent Body Work" must contact the road before the fuel tank.
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 07 June 2009 - 01:17 PM.
#58
_mowie_
_mowie_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 02:27 PM
If you refer to this diagram above from yella_slur, it has tangent to wheel which is not the contact patch of the ground to the wheel. Also says that some engineers take the exhaust as permanant body.
The tangent to wheel means the bottom photo from ls2lxhatch is wrong.
#59
TerrA LX
-
- Members
-
- 14,241 posts
Fulcrum Fixture
- Location:Sid 'n' knee
- Joined: 31-May 06
Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:07 PM
Gonna be an ugly looken drop tank to fit in there.
#60
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:19 PM
I had to guess where the bottom of the wheel was in the grass, I looks pretty close to me (see black circle added). The wording on the NCOP is not clear at what point on the tyre the angle is taken from. ("the static loaded rear tyres")
The picture looks different to the diagram because the beaver panel on the Torana is significantly higher than the beaver panel in the diagram.
I expect most engineers would measure by placing a straight edge at the base of the tyre and raising it up to the body work as in ass308's photo.
The picture looks different to the diagram because the beaver panel on the Torana is significantly higher than the beaver panel in the diagram.
I expect most engineers would measure by placing a straight edge at the base of the tyre and raising it up to the body work as in ass308's photo.
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 07 June 2009 - 03:32 PM.
#62
_mowie_
_mowie_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:29 PM
I had to guess where the bottom of the wheel was in the grass, I looks pretty close to me (see black circle added).
The picture looks different to the diagram because the beaver panel on the Torana is significantly higher than the beaver panel in the diagram.
Sorry mate but thats what i mean. its not the bottom of the wheel becase a line tangent to the bottom of the wheel is horizontal. Its not the contact patch that is the reference. ill draw a diagram
#63
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:36 PM
In mowie's diagram is states that the exhaust may count as body work. If this is the case then the Brown Davis tank would be legal on ass308.
#65
_mowie_
_mowie_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 03:37 PM
Thats a diagram that is in wiki, put there by YellaSlur. That is what i am basing everything from
#66
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 07 June 2009 - 04:00 PM
Mowie,
Looks like you were posting the same time I was adding to my post.
I agree with what you are saying however the NCOP does not use the terms mentioned in the diagram which leaves it open to interpretation.
This is all that is mentioned in the NCOP.
Even the diagram leaves it open to interpretation due to the height of the beaver panel. The line touches the tyre above the ground and also intersects the contact point. The diagram contains a vertical and horizontal lines through the tyre which would be irrelevant is the contact point is not significant.
In my opinion the tangent you mentioned makes the most sense as it represents the angle you get if you were to raise the car to the point where the beaver panel touched the ground.
I am going to check with an engineer tomorrow whether on not the exhaust can be considered body work under the NCOP. The diagram you posted mentions this may be possible.
Looks like you were posting the same time I was adding to my post.
I agree with what you are saying however the NCOP does not use the terms mentioned in the diagram which leaves it open to interpretation.
This is all that is mentioned in the NCOP.
Even the diagram leaves it open to interpretation due to the height of the beaver panel. The line touches the tyre above the ground and also intersects the contact point. The diagram contains a vertical and horizontal lines through the tyre which would be irrelevant is the contact point is not significant.
In my opinion the tangent you mentioned makes the most sense as it represents the angle you get if you were to raise the car to the point where the beaver panel touched the ground.
I am going to check with an engineer tomorrow whether on not the exhaust can be considered body work under the NCOP. The diagram you posted mentions this may be possible.
#67
_mowie_
_mowie_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 04:13 PM
When a car is rolling down a driveway and comes into contact with the road. This is then a new contact point which the furtherest contact point you could achieve is when a tangent line is drawn between the outside of the wheel and the beaver panel. shown here;
I know it might not make much sense but imagine the grey area is your cement driveway. The car will not continue moving beckward once it touches the inclination, it makes a new contact point then starts to move the car along that plane.
We must have been typing at the same time.
This is how i would interpret it.
Six months left of my mechanical engineering degree. should do automotive to.
I know it might not make much sense but imagine the grey area is your cement driveway. The car will not continue moving beckward once it touches the inclination, it makes a new contact point then starts to move the car along that plane.
We must have been typing at the same time.
This is how i would interpret it.
Six months left of my mechanical engineering degree. should do automotive to.
Edited by mowie, 07 June 2009 - 04:15 PM.
#68
View GaragePosted 07 June 2009 - 04:13 PM
I had a look at it earlier actually because I was curious, and I don't think it would pass that test either. It isn't too far off thoughI was having a look at 76lxhatch's project page and his is 100 litres, looks like it passes or at least comes close, and looks dam good.
#69
_ass308_
_ass308_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 06:08 PM
redslr,im not trying to get around the law,far from it.i asked if anyone was engineered for the tank.and im looking at what i can do to prove that its ok to my engineer.after all
10 inch rims on a nine inch isnt to the letter of the law either.but he sees the practical side to that.
cruiza,spot on mate with what im trying to do
mowie and ls2lxhatch,i apreciate the diagrams.the engineer 1st of all measured from the centre of the wheel.then went from behind the wheel.he seemed happy enough to go
from behind the wheel,for modification.i also got the feeling he would accept something outside the angle,just not as much as mine
i dont think a change in angle would be to bad.harveys car looks like a beast with his aproved tank.
going on that picture mowie,if u reversed your car into that u just lost your exhaust.and doing that with my car,id still crush the exhaust 1st aswell.its not practical.to me the
exhaust should have to be in this depature angle to,to stop damage to that
i dont see the prob with the tank as it is.they have made them for 30 years,and make over a hundered a year.never a problem,and one forum member has it engineered in
queensland.99 percent of torana droptanks stick outside this angle.if they were dangerous,we as a comunity would know.the next car show u go to see how many are inside the
departure angle.
10 inch rims on a nine inch isnt to the letter of the law either.but he sees the practical side to that.
cruiza,spot on mate with what im trying to do
mowie and ls2lxhatch,i apreciate the diagrams.the engineer 1st of all measured from the centre of the wheel.then went from behind the wheel.he seemed happy enough to go
from behind the wheel,for modification.i also got the feeling he would accept something outside the angle,just not as much as mine
i dont think a change in angle would be to bad.harveys car looks like a beast with his aproved tank.
going on that picture mowie,if u reversed your car into that u just lost your exhaust.and doing that with my car,id still crush the exhaust 1st aswell.its not practical.to me the
exhaust should have to be in this depature angle to,to stop damage to that
i dont see the prob with the tank as it is.they have made them for 30 years,and make over a hundered a year.never a problem,and one forum member has it engineered in
queensland.99 percent of torana droptanks stick outside this angle.if they were dangerous,we as a comunity would know.the next car show u go to see how many are inside the
departure angle.
#70
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 07:09 PM
As I see your two best options are
To get Davis Brown to talk directly to your engineer explain to him why their tank complies and how it complies and that hundreds of them are out there on certified cars all over Oz and NZ, this will be in DB owns best interest too.
Pursue the exhast angle, very much a second choice in my opionion
To get Davis Brown to talk directly to your engineer explain to him why their tank complies and how it complies and that hundreds of them are out there on certified cars all over Oz and NZ, this will be in DB owns best interest too.
Pursue the exhast angle, very much a second choice in my opionion
#71
_homer_
_homer_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 07:28 PM
Hmmmmm. I might have to change my tank back to a standard one to get the car registered.
#72
Redslur
-
- Members
-
- 3,536 posts
Has been Torana owner
- Name:Gerry
- Location:Canberra
- Car:HQ GTS Replica 350.
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 07 June 2009 - 07:35 PM
redslr,im not trying to get around the law,far from it.i asked if anyone was engineered for the tank.and im looking at what i can do to prove that its ok to my engineer.after all
Ass308
By know means was my comment aimed at you mate. I appreciate what you are trying to achieve.
I will be engaging an engineer in the near future and I know that I will be using the one that uses commons sense yet still applies the correct guidelines. Some just seem to want to take your money and keep you happy. And I say that with having a vast amount of experience with engineers!
Cheers, Gerry.
Ass308
By know means was my comment aimed at you mate. I appreciate what you are trying to achieve.
I will be engaging an engineer in the near future and I know that I will be using the one that uses commons sense yet still applies the correct guidelines. Some just seem to want to take your money and keep you happy. And I say that with having a vast amount of experience with engineers!
Cheers, Gerry.
#73
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 08:10 PM
I would say you would have a very hard time, yours looks very lower indeed and whatever connects onto those two outlet s is going to be extremely vunerable to damage, sorry do be a downer on what is also otherwise a very fine build. Ignoring ramp angle argurement for a moment those to outlets realy would worry me even if they were legal I am not a fan of things hanging down in harms way, is there anyway you can move them? Again sorry for negativityHmmmmm. I might have to change my tank back to a standard one to get the car registered.
#75
_mowie_
_mowie_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 08:48 PM
It would be incredibly easy for someone to come and steal 120 litres of fuel from you. Why were they not mounted on the forward face where the normal pickup ect is? Very dangerous
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
