View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dave-M Registered User
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 377 Location: Yorkshire, England
|
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:42 am Post subject: tank |
|
|
Keith, Thanks for the reply.
Is there an accepted figure for the capacity both the fibreglass and steel tanks? ( for both Phases).
Regards, Dave _________________ Ph.2 Ford 1500 GT
GT with Rochdale Chassis |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith hamer Site Admin
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 313 Location: Ellesmere Port
|
Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:14 am Post subject: Fuel tank capacity |
|
|
I am not sure about the original glass fibre tank capacities, however the original batch of stainless steel tanks made by the owners club way back work out to approximately 3.3gallon per tank for the ph2 and 4gallon per tank for the ph1. My guestimate having fitted both in the past is a loss in capacity of about 10% over the moulded in glass fibre units. _________________ Working to increase the profile of Rochdale Cars |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TonyS Registered User
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 231 Location: Worcestershire
|
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:42 am Post subject: Fuel Tanks |
|
|
Hi Dave,
In the Rochdale Olympic History Archive, we have many copies of Olympic spec sheets, price lists and brochures from early 1960 to late 1972, so I think we can help you with your questions.
The early Phase I could be supplied fitted with a N/S fuel tank of 6.5 gallons approx or a O/S fuel tank of 5.5 gallons approx or both tanks at 12 gallons approx ( a later spec sheet lists both tanks at 6 gallons approx each)
The Phase II is only listed with both fuel tanks at 10 gallons approx.
If my maths is correct that is a loss in capacity of 34% approx with the ROC tanks over the original moulded in fuel tanks in both Phase I and Phase II.
Note
The above is an example of what the Archive is about. To try and give an accurate answer with evidence to anyone,s questions on Rochdale Olympics.
Derek and I have always said about anything we write "if you know anything different or new please let us know and we can update or correct the History Archive".
ps, There is a good saying going around Historians and Researchers on the Internet at the moment "The truth often spoils a good story"
Regards, Tony.
Olympic Phase I 1960
Olympic Phase I 1962
Olympic Phase II 1963 _________________ Rochdale Olympic History Archive
Last edited by TonyS on Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:35 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith hamer Site Admin
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 313 Location: Ellesmere Port
|
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:57 am Post subject: Fuel tank capacities |
|
|
Since the dimensions of both tanks bonded into a ph1 are the same one would question how the tank capacity can be 1gallon different from left to right. _________________ Working to increase the profile of Rochdale Cars |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TonyS Registered User
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 231 Location: Worcestershire
|
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:20 am Post subject: Fuel Tanks |
|
|
Hi Keith,
I think this statement is not correct "the dimensions of both tanks bonded into a ph1 are the same" My experience in the late 1960s early 1970s when working on the design and development of TVR,s is,
first the profile of the o/s of a fibreglass body to the n/s profile is never exactly the same.
Second, if we take the Phase I o/s tank which I think is basically 3 panels part of the rear wing, part of the rear inner wheel arch, part of a boot panel. Made from 3 moulds which were basically made by eye and a few measurements.
The 3 panels are then bonded together by eye.
The n/s tank should be a mirror image but is 3 panels made from 3 different moulds which were basically made by eye and a few measurements and bonded together by eye. They going to be filled with a liquid
with no importance to the tanks being the exactly the same capacity and that is why the specifications say "gallons approx"
Also maybe after the Factory Fire, this capacity difference was corrected in the new body shells?
Regards, Tony. _________________ Rochdale Olympic History Archive |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dave-M Registered User
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 377 Location: Yorkshire, England
|
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:24 am Post subject: tanks |
|
|
Tony, Keith, Thanks for the info regarding tank capacities.
Continuing the discussion on this subject I would like to ask a couple of questions.
1) Are there any known examples of either P1 or P2 which are still, using the fibreglass tanks, leak free?
2) There appears to be no provision to vent the tanks on my car and it looks to be the same on all the others I have seen. Surely this won't help with the leaking problem when the weather is warm?
Regards, Dave _________________ Ph.2 Ford 1500 GT
GT with Rochdale Chassis
Last edited by Dave-M on Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith hamer Site Admin
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 313 Location: Ellesmere Port
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:26 am Post subject: Tanks |
|
|
From a personal perspective being an ex fire officer I would hope no one is still using their car with the original tanks, leak free or not. I have always been a little concerned about the concept of using the outer skin of the car as the fuel tank, which in the event of an accident could quite easily fracture allowing the fuel to spill out and potentially cause a fire.
Certainly on the 40 plus Olympics I have worked on over the years I have always advised the tank (if still in use) be replaced with something more suitable.
I have used the club stainless tanks, MG tanks in a ph1, and aluminium fabricated tanks too. The choice is up to the owners but I would urge that the originals be replaced. _________________ Working to increase the profile of Rochdale Cars |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TonyS Registered User
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 231 Location: Worcestershire
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:49 am Post subject: Fuel Tanks |
|
|
Hi Dave and other ROC members,
I agree 100% with what Keith said above. Safety always comes first.
Regards, Tony. _________________ Rochdale Olympic History Archive |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alan Smith Registered User
Joined: 10 Jan 2016 Posts: 90 Location: Littleborough, Lancashire
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I fully agree that the fibreglass fuel tanks are dangerous in the event of a crash.
I am not sure how much more dangerous they are, compared to alternative fuel tanks.
I do know that once I became aware of this issue with the Olympics, I simultaneously became aware that this is an issue that applies to all vehicles, regardless of age.
Becoming aware that even when I drive a modern car I am travelling in a ‘mobile petrol bomb’ initially made me feel quite uneasy.
However, familiarity over time has done it’s job and enabled me to now travel without thinking about it. Hurrah!
My point is that all fuel tanks are potentially lethal, some more so than others, and I am unable to quantify how much more lethal the Olympic ones are compared to others.
Broadly speaking, all classic cars are inherently more dangerous than modern ones and it seems to me that different owners have different views on how dangerous each car is to them.
I am still interested in Dave’s idea for a remedial treatment to the Olympic fuel tanks.
I love the originality of the design and the effective use of limited space, providing more free space in the rear.
If Dave manages to find a solution, I imagine that it might appeal to an owner who values the originality and / or space the design provides and is willing to accept the risks that come with it.
Each to their own.
_________________ Phase 1R Olympic
MM 1098 Engine & Gearbox |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|