Fuel testing rules

[hardingfv32-1]

Why are the fuel rules being changed? Have they been hard to enforce? Are they ineffective in preventing the use of expensive special fuels? What is the long term objective of the fuel rules?

Brian

[jpetillo]

As a Vee guy, I viewed the SCCA's fuel rules as a way to force us to support the racing fuel industry, when we'd be happy running just inexpensive pump fuel. It's a significant additional expense!

[24b4Jeff]

If you seriously research the fuel issue - which means you remember your organic chemistry and go to web sites other than that of the SCCA, you will find that there are a lot of ways in which legitimate fuel can fail the tests that the SCCA use. In particular, if you go to the track and use their 100 octane unleaded fuel, it will fail the DC test. Also, different batches of "legal" fuel, even from the same source and refinery, will have appreciably different values. (It goes without saying that the fuel one buys at an ordinary service station fails.) The mandating of use of fuel bought at Heartland park last year at the runoffs was tacit acknowledegement of that fact. NASCAR handles the problem the same way the SCCA did at Heartland: you get your gas from them. They test it, and if they test yours, the readings had better be within the range of measurement error determined by their analytical chemists.

Some of us have been petitioning the SCCA for some time to allow use of unleaded fuel, and others to allow use of pump gas. While I am not sure all pump fuels will pass the DC = 15 test, I know for certain that any unleaded racing gas will. In short, the new rule (table as Re-Posted) is a good thing that can save us some money and do away with some useless crap.

[RacerGeek]

As a Vee guy, I viewed the SCCA's fuel rules as a way to force us to support the racing fuel industry, when we'd be happy running just inexpensive pump fuel. It's a significant additional expense!

If only that were true! Fuel testing is a relatively new thing that started because a Vee driver, who happened to be on the CRB, iirc, found himself getting light-headed and nearly passing out on the grid of the Runoffs from breathing fumes of guys using "rocket fuels". Unfortunately, the stuff in the "rocket fuel" gives the same reading when tested as unleaded pump gas. While many would use pump gas, others will use expensive and dangerous fuels to gain an advantage.

[hardingfv32-1]

So the rule is being changed to allow unleaded pump fuel? Ethanol in gasoline has a much higher DC value. This would seem to be a re-introduction of the "rocket fuels".

Here is a table of gasoline dielectric constants: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~hideseng/dc_list.htm

Brian

[24b4Jeff]

You guys seem to have missed part of my point, and the URL pointed to above illustrates it. Not only does unleaded race gas or pump fuel have a nonzero DC, but a number of LEGITIMATE leaded fuels do also. In other words, there is a high probability of false positives with the testing. This is not just theory: about 4 years ago I went to a national at which they announced that they were going to be doing fuel testing, but the poor tech guy was naive, so he tested the fuels drawn from the pumps at the track, and posted the results on the pumps. *****NONE***** of the varieties passed. They then did the honest thing - no fuel testing.

Fuel testing largely came about because someone who makes testing kits did a great sales job on the SCCA. The kits will detect the most of the bad stuff, but a lot of innocent people will get burned as well. Having once towed 600 miles and paid $500 for a double national only to be thrown out because I was using 100 octane unleaded gas, I can tell you from experience that is not a good thing.

If you smell something funny, protest the person and ask that they pull a couple of spark plugs and the main jet. If the cheater is smart (i.e. wants to benefit from the fuel) they will need to use an oversize jet. If they are dumb (i.e. think they get an advantage simply by using the additive) then the plugs will be light gray or white due to the extreme lean-ness of the mixture. One way or the other, you can tell from simple tests that do not involve any complex chemistry.

Alternatively, we could ask the SCCA to buy a few gas chromatometers, and have them show up unannounced here and there. But the rule as it exists is just plain stupid.

[brian]

Since there appears to be a vague reference to me, I will say that I was very active in getting fuel testing. But I wasn't the only one. Many workers, especially tech folks in the Runoff tents, grew ill from the fumes as well. Fuel was approaching $30 a gallon and it was rapidly becoming a must have for all competitors. The SCCA responded to the requests from many to try to control this fuel. I still think it's a good idea to prevent unhealthy fuels to be used in our racing. The use of track fuel at the Runoffs was a managable solution to the problem and not a reason to increase revenue. It would have been nice to do the program nationally but there were too many vendors envolved to try to standardize.

That being said, I think it would be a great idea to be able to use the least expensive fuels that someone would want, including pump gas. Prior to the recent ruling, there were so many formulations of pump gas, it made it impossible to test the fuel. Relaxing the dc test addresses this issue. Now all you have to worry about is whether the fuel of your choice contains any agents that will kill your fuel cell. I killed the one on my dyno using pump gas and confirmed my suspicions with a cell manufacturer. Contact your fuel cell folks and find out more. It'll save you a new cell.

[hardingfv32-1]

Relaxing the DC is going to reintroduce the now $45 a gallon exotic race fuels. They are good for 1-2 HP. It would seem much more practical to leave the rule as is. Most competitors are never going to have their fuel tested, they can use illegal unleaded pump gas if they wish. The front runners will just have to put up with the trouble of getting avgas.

I'm assuming then that the rule change is based on a perceived cost savings, not any difficulty applying or testing the fuel standards.

Brian

[SOseth]

I have been told that the Fastrack entry regarding fuel is incorrect.  Expect a corrected version next month.

SteveO

[brian]

I understand that the reagent tests are used to detect the bizare additives as well.

[SR Racing]

If you smell something funny, protest the person and ask that they pull a couple of spark plugs and the main jet. If the cheater is smart (i.e. wants to benefit from the fuel) they will need to use an oversize jet. If they are dumb (i.e. think they get an advantage simply by using the additive) then the plugs will be light gray or white due to the extreme lean-ness of the mixture. One way or the other, you can tell from simple tests that do not involve any complex chemistry.

Not sure of what the point of that would be. There is no rule regarding jet size. Nor is there any rule regarding how rich or lean you burn. And all PCI-28's have "oversize" jets, due to the venturi mods. A typical 28 has anywhere from 1.80 to 2. 2.20 mains in it. So the jet size or his apparent burn won't tell you anything about the fuel he is using.

Jim

[kevin willmorth]

Most all the tricks being applied to high compression engines are useless for the FV motor. The additives specifically stated in the GCR as illegal, have more to do with octane enhancement (aromatics) and lead substitues than they do with power additives.

For a low compression, low RPM engine like the VW boxer, octane is a low priority. In fact, the engine should run quite well on 87 octane pump gas, if we even know what that is, since it changes by region, and season. Pump gas is not a great race fuel, as you never really know what you are getting at any given fill up. Avgas is better in this regard, as it is not messed with for the most part. However, running leaded fuel is not a good thing, low lead or not.

The problem is, unleaded fuels use additives to replace lead as an octane booster, which carry oxygen, thus generating a positive DC meter reading. Now, given this, someone with the right knowledge and background, can create a power enhanced fuel, by optimizing the oxegen content of the fuel, which a low compression, low RPM motor, breathing through a dweeby carberator can and would benefit from. These include: Methanol (MeOH), Ethanol (EtOH), Isopropyl alcohol (IPA), n-butanol (BuOH), Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), Tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), Tertiary hexyl methyl ether (THEME), Ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), tertiary amyl ethyl ether (TAEE), Diisopropyl ether (DIPE), Nitro Benzene, Acetone, and a few others, that will create higher BTUH and more complete cobustion, as well as a DC reading well above "0" - oh yeah, most of these chemicals are expensive, and can add up to $60 a gallon fuel mixes in a hurry. I also caution anyone who is inticed to play - some of these are highly reactive to metals that are present on our motors, which can create a serious mess if applied improperly, not to metion that some also have very high or low viscosities, and reduce octane, so jetting can become a whole new can of worms.

If I have a choice, I'd run unleaded fuel in the VW, as there are more race fuels suited to it without lead now, than there are that meet to current rules. However, I am also aware at just what a Pandora's box this is.

FWIW: I don't buy the idea that a hot fuel will present itself as a lean mixture affect. This is the result of bad tuning, no matter what the fuel, and will not produce a competitive advantage before or after the engine blows up.

[brian]

Thanks Kevin, your details are always very informative. I can see one situation where fuel can effect mixture and that's when the specific gravity changes. I understand a swing in SG will require a jet change.

One side bar regarding unleaded fuel, and it may not be an issue since our motors run shorter life spans, is that the seats found in our old heads are not compatible with unleaded fuels. Like I said, it may not be a issue, but without the lubrication of lead, the valve seats may suffer. We use hardened replacement seats in our heads to avoid any problems.

[SR Racing]

One side bar regarding unleaded fuel, and it may not be an issue since our motors run shorter life spans, is that the seats found in our old heads are not compatible with unleaded fuels. Like I said, it may not be a issue, but without the lubrication of lead, the valve seats may suffer. We use hardened replacement seats in our heads to avoid any problems.

VW Formally stated back in the 60's that the Beetle always had hardened seats and the low/no lead fuels were not an issue. Of course, they weren't refering to 7000 RPM.

Jim

[hardingfv32-1]

The lead actually reacts with the valve seat and valve face to form a hardened surface. After this has taken place no more lead is necessary as far as valve seat wear is concerned. A valve job will remove this hardened surface.

Kevin, the current trend in $50 LEGAL fuel is the use of additives that cool the incoming charge. What chemicals do that?

Brian

[problemchild]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about the fuel situation. Unfortunately, the regional driver is now being forced to buy $7/gallon fuel instead of cheaper common fuel. This is in an effort to keep the National driver from having to buy $50/gallon fuel to be competitive. That National driver would be delighted to only spend $7 per gallon for fuel if everybody would. Unfortnately, there is enough money to be made (and spent), that the fuel suppliers find ways to supply "special" fuel that passes the testing. I was there when the "special" fuel was only $30/gallon and it sucked. Apparently, many of the additives that allow the fuel to pass the test and stabilize the fuel, are less healthy than the nasty stuff we started being worried about.
IMO, there is no bad guy here. I applaud the people of SCCA for attempting to control this problem. This is just one of those market-driven problems that has no easy solution, if any solution at all. The obvious solution of spec fuel at the track has logistical complications that would seem to be beyond our scope.

PS .... Funny story. I knew one guy who was all wound up about the $30 fuel being beyond the spirit of FV. He had a spare car, a 30 ft trailer with new dually, 3 new engines, 3 trans, radio system, data acquisition, $3000 worth of shocks, and put new tires on every weekend. Hmmmm!

[qposner]

Meh. Ill stick with avgas.

[Keith Lawrence]

For a newbie, only wishing to run mid-pack in vintage just for the sake of having fun with old cars, can I run regular pump gas (87 or 92 octane) from a reputable dealer?

Keith
Pittsburgh PA
64 AD

[SR Racing]

For a newbie, only wishing to run mid-pack in vintage just for the sake of having fun with old cars, can I run regular pump gas (87 or 92 octane) from a reputable dealer?

I don't THINK you guys have the fuel testing rules? If not, yep. I would run the 91 or above, but you will be fine...

Jim

[Keith Lawrence]

EXCELLENT!!

I will use the extra money to put the special chemicals into the driver...
I usually run the special German type (reinheitsgebot).

Keith
Pittsburgh PA
64 AD

[SOseth]

Contrary to what I posted previously, I was informed last night that the CRB will recommend that fuel rules as outlined in the last Fastrack be adopted. In other words except for showroom stock (which must use EPA compliant fuel) all other classes will get to chose which fuel they may run as long as the DC is less than 15. I view this as a big step backwards for us as it opens the door for many exotic fuel blends that SCCA will not be able to find.

SteveO

[jpetillo]

Steve,

Thanks for the update. Do you know what the CRB hopes that this new rule will accomplish? I would like to think that there was some significant benefit or else there would be no rule change - of course that's often not the case when committees and special interests are involved.
If the CRB recommends it, does that mean it's a done deal? (I'm still trying to understand how this organization works.)

Thanks, John

[FV80]

John,
If the CRB recommends it, it is ALMOST a 'done deal'. You can write your letters of protest to the BOD@scca.com. Not sure if it will have any impact, but it doesn't hurt to try. I would also like to know what the CRB is attempting to achieve with this change.
Steve (not the Steve that posted above )

[SOseth]

Steve's explaination of the process is correct. I understand this is step 1 of a plan for the Club to become more enviornmentally friendly. The issue for me is that exotic fuels are much harder to detect in unleaded fuels than in leaded fuels. This has been a problem in SM and SRF for years. I don't think SCCA's has the wherewithall to adequately test unleaded fuels for exotic additives.

SteveO

[f clark]

Posting your letters to the BOD, and the CRB for that matter, does make a BIG difference, fact is ,not enought folks do it.
I'm the DA for Tech here in the S.E. and I know that our BOD folks are looking at this particular rule in great Depth, I have to agree with Steve Oseth this rule will OPEN THE DOOR to fuels we cannot test, I have tried.
The orginal intent, and well meaning I belive , was to make it so those who wanted to use station UNLEADED ,which is real JUNK by the way, you could do so or if they wanted to be "GREEN" ,as the saying goes, they could do so, There was a rumor going around a while back that TWO states have legislation pending saying that there could be NO LEADED FUEL sold for ANYTHING.
Please write your board members on all the issues, it MAKES A DIFFERENCE!
WE will have fuel testing equipment at the 45th party.
Fred Clark