Fuel testing rules

[24b4Jeff]

I could not disagree more strongly with Fred. I am one of the people who wants to use unleaded gas, and would be happy to use "pump" gas if I were allowed to. (Like I need 110 octane for my 7.3:1 compression ratio.) You make aspersions about people who want to be "GREEN", in your words. This is wrong, because you cannot see into the hearts or minds of others. If you want to continue deluding yourself that it is good to breathe lead fumes, that's all right with me, pal. After all, belief has nothing to do with science. And the science is on my side.

I really could give less of a darn if you young drivers want to bring your little kids to the track and expose them to this stuff, or breathe it yourselves. That is your decision. But please don't accuse others of ill intent without evidence.

If the SCCA really wanted to do something about fuels, it would be easy enough: mandate use of fuel bought at the track. Test that fuel, and, based on chemistry, set tolerance ranges to deal with possible residue in people's fuel cells. Then test using analytical chemistry (not the mickey mouse, often false positive way it is done now). You fail, and you are out of the SCCA, FOREVER. Plus your car is confiscated pending payment for the tests. Severe? You bet! But you can also bet that the fuel monkey business would end, tout de suit!

[24b4Jeff]

Oh, and by the way, the so-called rumor is at least in part true. It is illegal to use unleaded fuel in Canada, except under extraordinarily limited circumstances; circumstances that could never apply to a FV. And yet, last year the SCCA held a National race at Mosport, "in accordance with the General Competition Rules". But they did advise in the Sups that unleaded fuel was illegal. Did they waive the fuel rule? Nope! So as an entrant, one was placed in the position of either contaminating one's fuel cell by using unleaded fuel, or violating Canadian law. I pointed this out in writing to the Comp Board, and what did they do? Nothing!
What a bunch of hypocrites!

[SR Racing]

use station UNLEADED ,which is real JUNK by the way

Why is that?

In regards to the board listening to input.... When the fuel issue came up a few years ago we were doing some testing for Mobil Labs (Lubrication Sciences). They volunteered to help the SCCA with a reasonable solution for fuels and testing. The SCCA ignored our letters.

[f clark]

Jeff
I think you missed my point on the fuel issue, I don't care if you are green, orange, pink or what ever, my point was to get you to write to the BOD with same force you wrote to me! This is the ONLY way we will get anything done on this Issue!
I test the track fuel at every event I attend, Its amazeing whats out there,at the runoff this year DR. Badger showed me his equipment and what he could do with it, given the OK and the time, he knows what is out there and he can find it! I guess what I said about the "pump" fuel being junk should have been Pointed to the 2 stations around RRR where we got fuel to test, along with our track fuel tests, i'm surprised it would even burn, yours is probaly much better,the race track "100" Octane UNLEADED however was very very very good.
I do agree with you on a couple of points 1. the CLUB needs to get a handle the fuel testing or what ever, and they need to do it soon,2. also I agree they need to make the penalty stiff enought that racers don't even want to think about using hot fuel.
We have good people on the BOD right now and they will listen, pay atttention to the issues and let them know how what your openion is.
Fred

[FV80]

Several seem to think that the penalties for running ILLEGAL fuel should be SEVERE. Be careful what you ask for. I have a very low confidence factor that illegal fuel can be accurately 'found' and therefore ALWAYS NOT FOUND in fuel that is truly legal. You might end up on the WRONG end of that stick if you're not careful. I would want to see LOTS of proof that the tests really do work before I'll jump on THAT wagon!

I do believe that we need to make it illegal to use any fuel that costs more than the going rate for 'standard' race fuel (obviously, that would be tough to nail down, but you get the idea). Racing is expensive enough without offering anyone with more money than you some extra HP in his tank. At least, if it's ILLEGAL, the vast majority of racers would abide by that ruling and not cheat. If it's not ILLEGAL, then a LOT MORE racers would be inclined to use it. I think that one possibility might be to have a LIST of accepted fuels maintained at SCCA. SCCA would publish fuel guidelines and each mfr would have to submit a sample(s) of their fuel to get on the list. SCCA could spend a LOT more time and $$$ looking at it before allowing it on the list than they can when they test EVERYONEs fuel.

Personally, I don't think the SCCA abounds with cheaters. Most abide by the rules - possibly pushing into the gray areas <g> - but not many will CHEAT to win. Fuel testing could then be relegated to protest situations where more in depth fuel testing could be done if necessary (and that protest could be a CSA too).

JMHO...
Steve

[hardingfv32-1]

The intent of the proposed rule change is to allow the use of unleaded pump fuel. This is a common request that is made by average club racer. The majority of club racers want to be able to use pumped unleaded fuel. They usually are not at the top of the competition ladder. This will save money for a majority of racers. This is how the CRB and Brd are looking at this issue.

The health issues of exotic fuels are unproven. Are there any scientific studies on the subject? I would estimate that oxygenated fuels burn cleaner. Thats how it worked out in Calif.

Brian

[neilcox]

There may not be scientific studies about the health issues of exotic fuels, but I have run in the draft of those fuels and experienced serious respiratory problems. This created an immediate and dangerous situation for me and others on track as breathing became difficult. I had this experience following a FV and earlier behind a F500 that I confirmed with the drivers that their fuel was "exotic". I have not had similar effects from track fuels or AvGas (my choice).

[hardingfv32-1]

Does SCCA now have modify the fuel rule to protect drivers with sub par respiratory systems? Driving under less than ideal conditions is part of racing. Running a somewhat rich fuel mixture can have performance advantages. Using low tension oil rings and burn some oil also has some performance advantages. These could all be considered std Vee operating procedures. How about improving the drivers lung capacity.

Brian

[neilcox]

Nice

[DanRemmers]

The intent of the proposed rule change is to allow the use of unleaded pump fuel.

If that's the case, why wasn't it written, "allow the use of unleaded pump fuel"?

[problemchild]

Nobody has bothered to explain why unleaded fuel is not allowed.
I am not an expert but it was explained to me as such. Unleaded fuel uses oxygenates to achieve performance standards expected of our gasoline. Oxygenates can be used safely to certain levels but it is basicly a case of more oxygenates means more power. Oxygenates are only stable to certain levels of content. By adding other "nasty" elements, the fuel supplier can stabilize the increased oxygenate level and make more power. Once the SCCA or NHRA changes the test to determine the particular "nasty" element, the fuel company just spends more money to develop another "nasty" element which will pass the test. It is a cycle that continues as fuel costs increase.
There is a similiar cycle going on with leaded racing fuel.
Banning the use of unleaded eliminates one of these cycles. I would presume that someone decided that the leaded cycle was more manageable. I expect most SCCA classes would prefer to use leaded fuel.
PS .... The oxygenate levels in common unleaded gasoline varies drastically between seasons and regions, even within the same product bought at the same gas station only days apart. You do not know what you are getting, even without contamination issues. This would be why some people would consider it sh#t and unusable.
Cheers!

[SR Racing]

"Unleaded fuel uses oxygenates to achieve performance standards expected of our gasoline."

Actually, the Oxygenates were added as a part of the '90 Clean Air act. Their only direct effect was to reduce emisions (Carbon Monoxide) The energy content is slightly less than the prior fuel mixes.
While fuel economy is a bit worse, jetting and ECM corrections maintain the performance. But, that really isn't the issue. The problem, as you point out, was one of testing. In their quest to eliminate "super fuels", the testing also failed pump fuels.

[hardingfv32-1]

Jim is correct...a DC value that controls the use of super fuels also excludes the use of pumped unleaded fuel. Look at the DC values in this chart and the problem becomes apparent. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~hideseng/dc_list.htm This is the reason for the present fuel standards.

Brian

[kevin willmorth]

I think the argument that allowing the DC of 15 will unleash upon us a free-for-all of exotic fuels a fallacious. In this same series of posts, there are complaints of exotic fuels, within current fuel spec, so its not like the DC of "0" is stopping that from happening. Exotic fuel mixtures can be made in either form, adn are already being run.

Will the change in fuel spec change the sport to one where individuals will spend $750 a weekend for $50 a gallon fuel? This is an option now, inside the existing rules. So, the question might better be, what about the change in fuel specs is going cause competitors - who today have the option of exotics, but don't use them - to change from what they are doing to $50 a gallon fuels? What percentage of the population are those spending on this type of gas, to those who will benefit from simply buying pump gas at the station on the way to the track? Is it not really silly to penalize 80% of the poplation to attempt to control (unsuccessfully as has already been proven) those who are operating outside the spirit of sportsman racing?

I suggest the question for this topic is more about whether the majority of competitors we are likely to encounter will be running exotics, under any of the rules, when these compound enhanced fuels cost several times what most are running today. I suggest that the number of people running expensive race fuel blends will not change under the new rule, and the number of racers that will realize a weekend cost saving will be significant, thus, it is probably a good change overall.

[FV80]

Kevin,
I'm inclined to agree with most of your points - however, IMHO, it is IMPERATIVE that SCCA make a rule that clearly states the INTENT of that rule - and that is to NOT allow exotic fuels. Most people want to abide by the rules, however if the rule is that "there is no rule", then there are quite a few that will spend the bucks and buy exotic 'stuff'. I feel that, even if we can't conclusively TEST for it, we should still make it illegal. We could abolish fuel testing (at the track) completely as far as I'm concerned and simply BAN fuels that SCCA believes go beyond the intent of the rule (like C-44).

As far as I can tell, this testing stuff is simply escalating the cost of fuel. The makers (and buyers) spend more $$$ to get something that meets their needs/wants and still meets the rules - that makes it OK, since it truly "meets the rules". If we didn't HAVE *THOSE* rules (dc, reagent tests), but simply stated the obvious intent [ i.e. NO EXOTIC FUELS OR ADDITIVES ALLOWED - ONLY STANDARD 'PUMP GAS' OR RACING FUELS WITH MAXIMUM OCTANE OF 112 OR 100LL AV GAS ALLOWED], *I* think we would be better off. We could ban certain additives as appropriate. A competitor or official could still protest fuel and then test it more vigorously if need be.

I agree that it should be easier to "play fair" and still play "cheaply".
Steve

[brian]

Because of the high DC readings and the variability of street gas, it makes it impossible to determine whether the fuel in question is high in readings because of original formulation or addition of undesireable agents. Hence the banning of street gas.

With all of the technical talent on the forum maybe someone could tell me why street gas killed my cell. The manufacturer could not.

[hardingfv32-1]

Exactly what happened to your fuel cell?

Brian

[neilcox]

Alcohol?

[kevin willmorth]

Kevin,
I'm inclined to agree with most of your points - however, IMHO, it is IMPERATIVE that SCCA make a rule that clearly states the INTENT of that rule - and that is to NOT allow exotic fuels. ....

I agree that it should be easier to "play fair" and still play "cheaply".
Steve

The only way to keep the goofy-gas from getting under the tests is to mandate one fuel be used and supplied at the race, with a DC test comparing a test sample from that fuel to the cars in tech. This is what most all spec fuel racing clubs have gone to from motorcycles to karts, even the Star Mazda series, which requires MS98L (the same fuel we buy, from a supplier to racers in that series, and some drag racers ho have adopted it as their spec gas because its farily cost effective, and consistent.)

Without sophisticated chemical analysis, there is just no other way to eliminate additives, exotic mixes, etc... I can make a race fuel base mixture, with hotted up additives, produce a DC reading just like pump gas. I can also ask any one of three race gas producers for a custom blend, died to match any other fuel you want, or leave it clear to match pump gas, or Avgas.

I find it interesting that there is literlaly nothing in the rules that states "no exotic" fuels at all. The additives stated as illegal are all octane booster types, which would actually preclude racers from using pump gas with an adder to gain the missing octane, at alower cost than purpose made race fuel. The rule as stated now, and as proposed, is obsolete and ineffective, and does not state the purpose at all. It also does nothing to control the real power adders, which almost all of the race fuels contain some amount of.

In other words, there really is no fuel rule, except for a nuesance requirement in DC, which has little real effect on anyone bent on putting some pop in their soda... if ya knows what I mean. This is essentially the same issue as tire compounds and treatments - there is no solution to stop those intent on doing it, regardless of intent or rules, beyond taking out the opportunity. Supplying track spec fuels accomplishes this, but nobody wants to go down that path, so we live with an issue of our own invention.

Oh well...

[kevin willmorth]

Because of the high DC readings and the variability of street gas, it makes it impossible to determine whether the fuel in question is high in readings because of original formulation or addition of undesireable agents. Hence the banning of street gas.

With all of the technical talent on the forum maybe someone could tell me why street gas killed my cell. The manufacturer could not.

Ethanol: see this warning from ATL: http://www.atlltd.com/pdf/important/Eth ... d_Fuel.pdf

[kevin willmorth]

For anyone looking for a great unleaded race fuel, VP MS93 is made for engines like FV. Excellent in low compression, high temp environments, with the same specific gravity as 100LL, but without the lead, and no ethanol to eat the fuel cell, and is available at a decent price. Burns very clean, likes being a tad rich... It's only a +.8 DC, or I'd run it now in stead of MS98L.

It also mixes great with all the regular fizzy sweateners we use to make real power (ha ha).