Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I like to cater for the lowest common denominator (sometimes me lol). You can avoid all this if the battery is located in an area that's sealed off from the cabin by a fluid proof bulkhead (firewall).

My RX2 had the battery (big mofo truck battery but that's another story) in one of those cheapo marine boxes in the boot, but the boot was sealed off with an alloy firewall, so all was good (CAMS and DOT legal)

When the car is running, the battery is charging, specially in the first few minutes of operation. It WILL be making an explosive gas. It's highly unlikely that the amount will ever be enough to cause a problem, but you never know.

The other thing to consider is mechanical damage to the battery from things flying around in the boot (or whever it is housed). Normally not a problem, but it can happen. going back to the rally analogy, do you think many people will take the time to carefully stow the spare and tools after changing a flat tyre mid stage?

Edit:

I recall looking over another RX2 rally car a couple of years ago, and he had the fuel tank mounted in the boot, with a "remote" fill point inside the boot (those who've rallied RX2's will know what I mean). The funnel around the fill point (which catches stray fuel and drains it away from the boot or back into the tank) was the typical folded sheet metal arrangement, and the whole thing was sitting directly above the battery.

See where I'm going with this? After many km of vibration, the nice fat insulator above the battery + terminal had worn away to almost nothing by the fuel filler bouncing around above it. This day we were looking at the car, the owner grabbed the funnel and bounced it around slightly and a couple of sparks came off the battery when the funnel touched the battery terminal.

All was fine many years ago when the car was built, but after a while some of the safety gear had worn out, and all of a sudden there was a pretty nasty hazard right there in the back of a rally car. A few cable ties and 100mph tape fixed it, and I'm sure it's still like that today. :P

We all talk about safety and properly engineered cars, but this kind of dodginess does happen, and you'd be a fool to pretend it didn't

As I said before, I like to cater for the lowest common denominator.

Edited by warps

Good consideration for rally people.

Not such an issue for me. If there's any debris flying around to damage my battery I've probably got bigger issues. If it can live in the engine bay without a box, it can live in my boot without one also.

Edited by ActionDan
Good consideration for rally people.

Not such an issue for me. If there's any debris flying around to damage my battery I've probably got bigger issues. If it can live in the engine bay without a box, it can live in my boot without one also.

Yes, but you don't generally carry stuff under the bonnet, whereas the boot is designed for carrying all sorts of things. If you're certain you'll never have any unsecured stuff in the boot, then fair enough. (I know how tempting it can be to throw some tools / spares in the boot when you're transporting to an event, specially when the tow car is already chockers with gear)

I mainly want to know what the best way is for me. I have a fuel system in the boot, just a surge and a pump on the boot floor basically.

Obviously it's seperated from the cabin area by a "flame proof" partition.

My question is, under CAMS, can I mount my battery securely on the other side of the boot, or does it need to be seperate, vapour wise, from the fuel system? ie, In a sealed box venting externally.

I want to avoid having to use a battery box, if only for weight. I'm anal about weight..... why spend an hour finding 300 grams just to add it back with a stupid battery box? :P

Edited by Marlin
My question is, under CAMS, can I mount my battery securely on the other side of the boot, or does it need to be seperate, vapour wise, from the fuel system? ie, In a sealed box venting externally.

I want to avoid having to use a battery box, if only for weight. I'm anal about weight..... why spend an hour finding 300 grams just to add it back with a stupid battery box? :D

I think you can do it that way, but I never feel comfortable having an ignition source so close to a fuel source. That's essentially what the RX2 had, although the battery was in an externally vented marine box so it looked like a more complete installation than having a bare battery sitting in the boot. The scrutes were only ever concerned that the battery was properly clamped down inside the box, rather than how well things were vented.

Besides, with the high quality seals in the RX2, I can guarantee there was enough airflow through the cab / boot to ensure you never had a build up of any gases :)

triangles with sides of 150mm...

I mainly want to know what the best way is for me. I have a fuel system in the boot, just a surge and a pump on the boot floor basically.

Obviously it's seperated from the cabin area by a "flame proof" partition.

My question is, under CAMS, can I mount my battery securely on the other side of the boot, or does it need to be seperate, vapour wise, from the fuel system? ie, In a sealed box venting externally.

I want to avoid having to use a battery box, if only for weight. I'm anal about weight..... why spend an hour finding 300 grams just to add it back with a stupid battery box? :P

My previous log booked IPRA Datto passed pre-race inspection with dry cell battery lying on passenger floor unboxed (bolted down obviously). I can't imagine there would be any problem with having it in the boot with the fuel system.

Edited by hrd-hr30

yeah I've seen many an automobile with a small dry cell securely mounted down in passengers side of cabin (where rear seat passengers feet would be if you had any rear seat passengers or a rear seat)...

  • 8 months later...

Digging up an old thread, wanted to clarify something.

1) As I have my battery and isolator in the same spot do I need both stickers on the car next to each other (plain blue triangle and blue triangle with lightning bolt)?

2) Do I need the lightning bolt sticker if I don't have a remote pull for the isolator? I'm guessing the sticker should go where the pull for the isolator goes, which for me will be right there anyway as I'm going to use the aerial hole.

3) Best place on the rear quarter closest to the battery or on the rear face of the boot lid?

either rear quarter or rear of bootlid is ok. whatever best shows where the battery is. and yes if there's no remote pull for the isolator you don't need to use the lightening bolt yet. as harry said size of those stickers is regulated. they must always be a triangle with 15cm sides.

I wonder marlin if your battery is real. it does have a spelling mistake on it "Coltage"...I guess V and C are next to each other on the keyboard but still surprised that would get through editing of a big company. it may be a copy odyssey?

you can also buy small sealed batteries that have a vent tube built in (they are what you should be buying for a R34 etc). it's easy to fit one of those to an R32 then you just need to drill a hole 8-10mm in the floor, fit a small rubber grommet and then put the vent turbo through that hole. can still box it up too if you like to guard against damage and/or spills and ahve the vent tube pass through the side of the box and then out the floor. they are not particularly expensive either.

OK Cheers for that, I might just go get some cable and hook up that remote pull so it's done then bang some stickers on it.

and then put the vent turbo through that hole.

Love this typo Baron, not hard to see where your heads at :D

Edited by ActionDan

Nice catch on the spelling mistake Baron :)

When I said tell me what you think of the text I was referring to the warning section re explosive gases.

I don't think it's a fraud battery, it's of high quality manufacture and is still going strong, despite being mounted to my diesel high pressure water sprayer and subjected to appalling vibration for weeks at a time while the sprayer and I were out cleaning up after the Queensland floods.

I nicked it out of the 34 before I sold it and it's now mounted in the 32 race car, but I've decided (for now at least) to keep it up the front. By the time a box and all the associated extra cable etc is installed for a boot or cabin mounted battery I think the weight difference will be negligable.

I'm also concerned about voltage drop over longer cable runs..... last thing I need it to not be able to start a stage because the battery won't start it because the cable run is too long and the starter is heat soaked. I've seen it before and it'd be a terrible way to lose an event..... I can find many much better ways to lose :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...