Engineered rule bending
Discussion
flemke said:
Another trick that Penske/Donohue employed in Trans-Am was with their fuel rig.
The rules stated that the refueling rate during a pit-stop could not be artificially aided - gravity only.
In their pit area, the Penske team erected a frame that held the fuel drum 20' above the ground, to increase the flow rate.
Reminds me of something I read recently in a magazine about Lotus competing at the Indy 500.The rules stated that the refueling rate during a pit-stop could not be artificially aided - gravity only.
In their pit area, the Penske team erected a frame that held the fuel drum 20' above the ground, to increase the flow rate.
They employed the Wood Brothers team to run the car at Indy, and they came up with an ingenius system to funnel the fuel into the car quicker during pitstops - something to do with some baffling or syphoning system in the fuel tank so the fuel flowed in and the air it was displacing could escape much quicker.
They kept it very quiet throughout practice and qualifying but come the race they were saving whole truck-loads of time every time they pitted for fuel.
Wasn't illegal, just a clever way to maximise their advantage.
Nick3point2 said:
But didn't melt the fuel tank, fuel lines,fuel pump, carbs, inlet manifold, cylinder head, valves, pistons or spark plugs?
I call bulls
t.
Just because a sheet of aluminium is easier to punch a dent in than a block of concrete, doesn't mean that concrete is more stable when exposed to a certain combinations of chemicals.I call bulls
t.MrKipling43 said:
Just because a sheet of aluminium is easier to punch a dent in than a block of concrete, doesn't mean that concrete is more stable when exposed to a certain combinations of chemicals.
the physical characteristics of the material don't mean a thing regarding the chemical reactivity, you are correct.however, aluminium burns in air. concrete doesn't.
pick any chemical and i bet aluminium metal will react with it before concrete
mat205125 said:
freedman said:
Crafty_ said:
Not racing per say but I once read a story about homologation rules in rallying. This was the group B era, I cant remember if it was the 6r4 or the RS200.. either way the inspectors turned up to ensure that the correct number of road cars were being built as per the rules. They were shown to a storage building where sure enough there was a number of road going homologation specials. They were then invited to a nice lunch off premises, when they returned they were shown to another storage building where the other half of the cars were. All well and good right ? not really - the first storage shed was empty as they didn't have enough cars so moved them all during lunch!
Same with Porsche and the 917Rules said they need to make 25 cars, which they did, but 24 of them didnt work (at the time of the inspection) and had been cobbled together by office staff etc
I think the inspectors were so astonished that anyone had actually gone ahead and built them they looked no further than the only running car
Didn't they promise to make the required road car number, race and win the American LeMans series, take the trophies, and then forget to make the cars?
Not unique with homologation minimum numbers, but no one will ever admit that they never ever intended to make the required number, will they!
snowy slopes said:
Crafty_ said:
Wasn't Benetton that "modified" their fuel rig by taking out an inline filter to increase flow rate ? I remember there was some talk of it contributing to the Verstappen fire ?
Yep, they took a washer/filter out IIRC, and they got a right bking for that oneNick M said:
snowy slopes said:
Crafty_ said:
Wasn't Benetton that "modified" their fuel rig by taking out an inline filter to increase flow rate ? I remember there was some talk of it contributing to the Verstappen fire ?
Yep, they took a washer/filter out IIRC, and they got a right bking for that oneBecause other teams had done it too, on advice from intertech or someone, they got away with it. It's on wikipedia anyway, funny how Briatore was in charge then, and was in charge during the piquetgate scandal eh??
Edited by snowy slopes on Friday 8th July 16:00
snowy slopes said:
Not entirely sure, i shall google it and come back
Because other teams had done it too, on advice from intertech or someone, they got away with it. It's on wikipedia anyway, funny how Briatore was in charge then, and was in charge during the piquetgate scandal eh??
Tom Walkinshaw was Tech Director and very implicated in it all. Because other teams had done it too, on advice from intertech or someone, they got away with it. It's on wikipedia anyway, funny how Briatore was in charge then, and was in charge during the piquetgate scandal eh??
Edited by snowy slopes on Friday 8th July 16:00
Life Saab Itch said:
snowy slopes said:
Yep, they took a washer/filter out IIRC, and they got a right bking for that one
No, they didn't get bking for that oneked for it at all.Derek tells this story better.
king, but because there was mitigating circumstances,they didnt get a fine or points docked etc?? I remember reading about a nascar team using a rocket fuel in there cars.I think it was in the form of a grease that was put in the inlet manifold.what ever they were using was very nasty,when one of there engines blew up the scruitineers wanted to check the engine,when the inlet manifold came off they had to come clean to the scruitineer before he touched what ever they had put on it.
andrew830 said:
I remember reading about a nascar team using a rocket fuel in there cars.I think it was in the form of a grease that was put in the inlet manifold.what ever they were using was very nasty,when one of there engines blew up the scruitineers wanted to check the engine,when the inlet manifold came off they had to come clean to the scruitineer before he touched what ever they had put on it.
Michael Waltrip.llewop said:
The BTCC Alfa Romeo 155s with their extra lift rear wing and front splitter kit that meant they came into the championship with such a bang - overshadowing the novelty value of the Volvo estates that were introduced the same year.
Not really cheating as such. It was to do with homologation. A production version was brought down to satisfy TOCA.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff