Fuel tank

[cheswick]

For What it's worth: The static load on all doors has been referenced in other threads here and in other IG reports as 150Kg. The "designed for' load was also a "talking point" on the 'drive day' here in Queensland last Jan/Feb (2022).

Am I right in thinking 150kg static is ~100kg dynamic?

 

[DenisM]

Am I right in thinking 150kg static is ~100kg dynamic?

I've always assumed that the "2/3 static approximates the max. dynamic load" was a conservative "best guesstimate" /rule of thumb. Given the acceleration/deceleration forces associated with heavy corrugations and "jump ups" , the max. dynamic load might reasonably be reduced to 50% (or even lower) of the static load. Either that or one needs to slow down significantly...

 

[cheswick]

I've always assumed that the "2/3 static approximates the max. dynamic load" was a conservative "best guesstimate" /rule of thumb. Given the acceleration/deceleration forces associated with heavy corrugations and "jump ups" , the max. dynamic load might reasonably be reduced to 50% (or even lower) of the static load. Either that or one needs to slow down significantly...

I'll probably go 50% just to err on the side of safety then. Realistically hanging 75kg off a door is probably not something I am ever going to do, at most a jerry can + mounting kit would get me up to 25kg.

 

[DCPU]

Why not take a lead from Ineos and the published figures for the roof. Static load is 420kg and dynamic 150kg.

That's way different than ⅔rds, more like ⅓rd (35.7%).

And looking at the Yakima website on the issue, they state "As a general rule, in a static environment, the load rating can be increased by a multiple of three (3)."

So using 3 as a denominator seems OK but the numerator should be 1 not 2.

All this is caveated by the requirement to have any load evenly distributed.

As an aside, and looking at roof rack loads vs mounting arrangements, they offer this:

Gutter mounts draw the largest reduction in load.

I wonder why Ineos, with a clean sheet design, went for gutter mounts when it has the choice of not one but two fixed point attachment locations via the roof rails and the roof strips.

 

[DCPU]

Why not take a lead from Ineos and the published figures for the roof. Static load is 420kg and dynamic 150kg.

That's way different than ⅔rds, more like ⅓rd (35.7%).

View attachment 7794371
And looking at the Yakima website on the issue, they state "As a general rule, in a static environment, the load rating can be increased by a multiple of three (3)."

So using 3 as a denominator seems OK but the numerator should be 1 not 2.

All this is caveated by the requirement to have any load evenly distributed.

As an aside, and looking at roof rack loads vs mounting arrangements, they offer this:

View attachment 7794372

Gutter mounts draw the largest reduction in load. I wonder why Ineos, with a clean sheet design went for gutter mounts when it has the choice of not one but two fixed point attachment locations via the roof rails and the roof strips.

 

[Tazzieman]

1. What's the legalities of doing that?

2. When you say hang off the back or front ~ is that in terms of the footprint/vertical line from any external face or just when viewed from the front/rear?

In Australia state laws differ and are to some extent open to interpretation. As long as it doesn't exceed noise limits (very debateable - Harley Davidsons are much much louder and aren't penalised) and you don't remove exhaust emissions devices , in most state there is no problem.
Depending upon "taste" , a smaller muffler would keep things at a fair noise level. Lots of noisy diesels with sports mufflers around.
2. I don't think anyone can put diesel let alone petrol fuel containers in the frontal area (collision zone) ; diesel is permitted on the back at collision height , petrol - probably legal but it would be a brave person...
On the roof? No problems , risks are with XS weight and petrol if the car rolls etc.

And on the sides? Nothing must project beyond the periphery of the car as it comes from the factory.
You might get away with a slimline fuel container ; I wouldn't risk it on any count. Some will - offroad.

 

[trobex]

QLD is a big state and there are several roads in the centre where next fuel is "200 or 300kms". Bear in mind the Gren is greatly more efficient than the Landcruiser V8s and so 90L should get us stone 850km or more... without heavy off road. The same 90L in the LC gets what - 650kms roughly?

 

[trobex]

PS dynamic load at 30% of static is closer to the mark for engineering metal structures (or less even) . Similar to engineer design in steel beams, columns etc. There is also the affect of dynamic loads which can twist/rotate otherwise very strong members. For example, flat bar is rigid in one axis, and absolutely terrible in the other.

 

[Wayneos]

In Australia state laws differ and are to some extent open to interpretation. As long as it doesn't exceed noise limits (very debateable - Harley Davidsons are much much louder and aren't penalised) and you don't remove exhaust emissions devices , in most state there is no problem.
Depending upon "taste" , a smaller muffler would keep things at a fair noise level.

I mentioned a rear muffler delete with one of the IA drivers at a drive day and he agreed that it shouldn't be a problem. I'll be looking into at some point. Free up some space back there.

 

[Krabby]

Harley Davidsons are much much louder and aren't penalised

That's exactly how things are in the States too. Some of those bikes are loud as all hell and if your car or truck sounded like that you'd be pulled over left and right. I know we have some motorcycle guys on the board and I don't want to insult them, but the Harley thing (especially the loud ones) has never once appealed to me.

 

[Tazzieman]

Some of those bikes are loud as all hell

I have heard the noise described as that of a "wet flatulent hippo."

 

[OzyGrenie]

Now this is a good solution. Not as low centre of gravity inside the chassis, however 2x 30 litre tanks gives 150 total. It wouldn't do the Canning Stock Route (say 1,400kms off road consumption @15Kms per 100 Kms estimate for Diesel) yet be ok for the majority like the Simpson Desert etc. Hence Diesel is the preferred fuel/engine. With lower torque, lower engine revs, with approx. 10 to 12% more fuel efficient than petrol, extends range.

I would still prefer looking at swapping the main tank with an after market, adding another 60 Litres (if possible???). Then only require this solution for the longer tracks.

 

[globalgregors]

Now this is a good solution. Not as low centre of gravity inside the chassis, however 2x 30 litre tanks gives 150 total. It wouldn't do the Canning Stock Route (say 1,400kms off road consumption @15Kms per 100 Kms estimate for Diesel) yet be ok for the majority like the Simpson Desert etc. Hence Diesel is the preferred fuel/engine. With lower torque, lower engine revs, with approx. 10 to 12% more fuel efficient than petrol, extends range.

I would still prefer looking at swapping the main tank with an after market, adding another 60 Litres (if possible???). Then only require this solution for the longer tracks.

View attachment 7808976

Hang on… how many litres of additional fuel load are you estimating for a diesel doing the CSR?

 

[YIPPE]

 

[bigleonski]

View attachment 7809105

Hmmm well that’s generally useless unless it’s just to fill the lawnmower sitting in the boot.

 

[YIPPE]

Hmmm well that’s generally useless unless it’s just to fill the lawnmower sitting in the boot.

Great for chainsaw.

 

[Steve.B]

If that goes all the way in the wheel well it may hold 20 litres, it may be the only advantage of 18" wheels as you would be able to fit a bigger can in the well and that may give you a couple of extra litres or a 20" or a 22" wheels for an even bigger can.
22" on a 4x4 ill just go and wash my mouth out with soap.

 

[OzyGrenie]

In Australia anyway, carrying combustible fuel on the outside REAR of any vehicle or trailer is illegal, let alone dumb, on or off road. In any case, any collision (which no one can guarantee not happening) its plain neglect let alone risk of injury to others. Lets just say you'd have no insurance or warranty, or any valid argument in court of law. Just the fumes alone on impact are enough to explode. YouTube is full of examples lacking common sense. Even diesel being less volatile, cant be carried on the rear.

 

[cheswick]

In Australia anyway, carrying combustible fuel on the outside REAR of any vehicle or trailer is illegal, let alone dumb, on or off road. In any case, any collision (which no one can guarantee not happening) its plain neglect let alone risk of injury to others. Lets just say you'd have no insurance or warranty, or any valid argument in court of law. Just the fumes alone on impact are enough to explode. YouTube is full of examples lacking common sense. Even diesel being less volatile, cant be carried on the rear.

Diesel Jerry cans being carried on the rear are 100% legal.

 

[Steveo]

Diesel Jerry cans being carried on the rear are 100% legal.

Thanks, I was getting worried.