Alternative Fuel Tank Suggestions

[Humble]

Here's a pic of my ATL well cell tank. It's a 12 gal. unit with a fuel level sender. If you get the 10 gal. one it's not as tall. Lowers the center of gravity quite a bit for the front axle and gives it a little more grip from what I've heard. This is the same tank that that Jeffery's race car in japan uses if I remember correctly.

[BulletBug]

nicely put humble... any idea how much is the cost including the fuel level sender??

how to brace the tank so that it doesnt budge?

[Humble]

I think the tank and sender ran me about $560-600 or so which is pretty cheap for a fuel cell. Fuelsafe units can easily clear $1000. If you look at the top plate you can see the black fingers bolted to it. Those will pinch down on a couple of aluminum straps and the straps will bolt down on either side of the tank.

Something else to consider with fuel cells that you don't encounter with normal tanks is foam and container degradation. After 3-5 years or so the foam needs to be replaced because it is slowly eaten by the gas, but the foam is usually pretty cheap. Tanks with a separate bladders should have the bladder checked out at least every 5 years and possibly replaced every 5-7 years depending on environment. Tanks like the fuel safe which have the bladder inside the plastic may last longer but still need to have the foam replaced.

[BulletBug]

is the mounting included in ur kit humble? or DIY? ATL is in US right?

[Humble]

Unfortunately, theres no mounting kit inculded but that makes sense given that most spare tire wells are different. It's all diy for mounts and you can do a google image search for "atl well cell" to find a few. ATL is based out of the US and England with distributors all over.

[BulletBug]

how much is the replacement foam? is it sold on from ATL or normal hardware have them.... im really going for a diff look... a totally racing look... plus its a safer tank..

[Humble]

The foam is $104 from ATL but you should be able to get it cheaper from a distributor. It's a special open cell foam that's resistant to race fuel, methanol, ethanol and not something you can usually pick up locally. In supers it's possible to use a remote filler neck on the fuel cell and still use the stock filler location.

[BulletBug]

any pics of the ATL tank completely bolted on ur bug??

[Humble]

I haven't gotten that far yet, but I'll be there soon. We'll be touching up the last of the cage paint this weekend then start on the fuel system. If you look through the featured articles on the main site you'll find a couple of the Jeffery's car. I really like the way he mounted his tank and I'll probably end up doing the same.

[evilC]

As a matter of principle I would rather see the tank mounted back behind the front axle line, within the wheelbase to reduce the polar moment of inertia. I appreciate that the tank would have to be mounted high up that increases the roll couple but thats easier to deal with that having a variable large mass outboard of the wheel base. It of course doesn't matter if you don't need to get the best handling for turning corners.

evilC

[Humble]

I think the difference to the polar moment of inertia would be almost nil given the amount of mass and it location. Most of the weight is between the front wheels and there's only 70lbs or so at most. Given that you're dropping that weight 18" or more makes a difference in the amount of body roll you get. I think it would make a big difference for turning corners since that mass gives the front end more bite. For sprints you can dial in your front axle weight with a little more or a little less gas. In endurance races it's a compromise because your handling will change as you drain the tank but that's true for any lighter car.

[evilC]

I assume that the ATL tank is the 45 litre version? that will equate to around 100lbs or marginally less. The important aspect about Polar Moment of Inertia is that it affects the responsiveness of the vehicle. If we could locate all the mass within the wheel base and close to the geometric centre of mass then the vehicle would turn on a sixpence (dime(?)). If you had a 45 litre tank in the original position the difference in the mass over the front axle would be small but the PM of I would be substantially less. As I said, I think the increase in the roll couple would be easy to handle.
I appreciate that we are talking around the subject without having the calcs and dynamic modelling to hand. However, my starting point from a design point of view in a Bug would be to reduce the PM of I as a preference as it already suffers in that respect with the engine slung out at the rear. I am also conscious that the axle loadings can change significantly at the front due to the consumption of fuel and I would be keen to minimise the effect. Slinging the fuel tank (a big one at that) as far forward as is possible just goes against the grain.
One last thing that does occur to me is that the tank in the front well is in the most vulnerable position particularly as that area is the only useful crumple zone in a front end collision and one behind the wheel axle line is better protected. It may be that in the use that you put the car to -sprints and the like- that such a consideration is of little concern but in the forms of motorsport that I am into it is a possibility.

evilC