Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll be in for this, just have to get paid first, renew CAMS next week etc.

As for Garages, there are quite a few. Believe at the weekend they quoted $160 but you can double up.

That's a ripoff - when bikes do trackdays its $10 per bike, and you usually have 4 bikes per single car garage.

Lol at the fezza BBQ pics :D

Pic of how you have it mounted Ant for those playing @ home?

Will take a pic for you when I get home but I used the bolt behind the drivers seat that attaches the rear seat bottom cushions to the car.

What you have highlighted in bold is a bullshit regulation, it's unrealistic. I've never had an issue with scrutineering where mine is mounted. I don't know about you Ant, but when I'm properly strapped in to my harness I can barley turn my torso, let alone reach anywhere for a fire extinguisher.. and I wouldn't be staying strapped in the harness if the car is on fire.
lol, I can't reach the climate controls when belted in.

Every man, dog, women, child has their own opinion on fire extinguisher locations. The close to the driver the better, imo.

Firstly, I couldn't agree with you more John. The closer and more accessible the ext is to the driver the better - if I had a roll cage there would be a mount as close as possible to me.

Matt - I am not disagreeing with you but would appreciate if you keep personal opinion regarding the suitability of my fire ext position off of a public forum. Bottom line is that the regs are a grey area at best, but despite this my mounting meets all of the requirements and more importantly I am confident that in an emergency situation I can get to the ext. At the end of the day, if there was a fire situation I will not be hanging around and would try and escape from the vehicle as quickly as possible. No one knows how they would react in this kind of emergency situation until they are in it but I can say that I am better prepped than most having recieved certification to escape from a submerged, dark, upside down helicopter + fire fighting training.

As far as I can tell these CAMS regs are written for a worst case situation where after an accident the driver is trapped in their harness upside down with an in cabin fire - hence the part in bold that I highlighted. While the potential is there for this type of accident the chances are pretty slim of it actually occuring.

Matt - I am not disagreeing with you but would appreciate if you keep personal opinion regarding the suitability of my fire ext position off of a public forum.

Oh toughen up princess, have a f**king sook? If you don't like my opinion deal with it. Talk about it all you like, I'm happy with where my extinguisher is mounted and unless told otherwise by a scrutineer it will remain there.

Come on now ladies, no need to get all PMS on each other

Still waiting on pics Ant

Whoa there fella, some of us have to put kiddies to bed before spending time in the man cave :P

Here you go...

post-6243-0-29146900-1310983008_thumb.jpg post-6243-0-06393100-1310983014_thumb.jpg post-6243-0-60145400-1310983018_thumb.jpg

As for getting shirty....maybe its the engineer in me getting defensive when one of my carefully thought out designs get questioned ;):D

LOL... Fair call. Not mini-me's in my place of residence thank fark.

You can reach that when strapped in? :blink:

Are you inspector gadget or something?

yep quite easy and you don't even need to twist your torso. Next time you are sitting in your car try it. I wouldn't have put it there if I couldn't get to it easily... I did actually think about it and try it before fitting

yep quite easy and you don't even need to twist your torso. Next time you are sitting in your car try it. I wouldn't have put it there if I couldn't get to it easily... I did actually think about it and try it before fitting

You are certainly lucky if you can mate. I was never saying you didn't think about it before doing it.

I tell you now i know i wouldn't be able to reach back that far :D

If i cant reach a bottle falling back there, i got no chance. Especially if i can't see it - panic situation etc.

Having been "upside down" in a car before, there is a good few seconds of confusion followed by "GTFO" fast as you can. Fire Ext last item on ones mind.

For me to be able to reach any extinguisher when strapped in, I'd need it to be bolted to the steering wheel.

Wondering how the scruntineers would go with that? I could duct tape a pillow or a teddy around it :teehee:

As for getting shirty....maybe its the engineer in me getting defensive when one of my carefully thought out designs get questioned ;):D

Well at least you can always fall back on a life in the circus as a contortionist Ant :nyaanyaa:

You are right though - in the 32 with standard seats I am able to reach (around?) to that spot. Not sure after adding a proper harness or seat though.

Need to do a few proper drills in the 34. It has one to the rear of the center console and one under the front of the passengers seat.

Whoa there fella, some of us have to put kiddies to bed before spending time in the man cave :P

Here you go...

post-6243-0-29146900-1310983008_thumb.jpg post-6243-0-06393100-1310983014_thumb.jpg post-6243-0-60145400-1310983018_thumb.jpg

As for getting shirty....maybe its the engineer in me getting defensive when one of my carefully thought out designs get questioned ;):D

CAMS rules just state that it has to be capable of being removed without the use of tools.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
×
×
  • Create New...