$30 per gallon super fuel

[Beartrax]

Rick said,

The pump will ask for a tail number, so either pick one from a nearby plane, or use what I use: NCC-1701.

I think that it is scary that I get that reference!

[John Andersen]

Chas S.
The fingerprinting we use is based on our spec fuel.we use only sunoco 110 leaded "purple"in our series so this allows us to detect any other fuel that might be mixed in,even other sunoco fuels.for example,when we go to mid-ohio at the end of this month I will take a control sample from their tank and calibrate our machine with that.once that "baseline" is established we can take a sample from any competitor and the machine will either pass it or fail it.we also do the standard testing for other additives.

[Rick Kirchner]

By the way, I spent hours last night looking at various FAA regs to see if there was anything precluding AVGAS sales outside of general aviation. None that I could find. The scary thing is that I found a website that was a users group for guys that run airports. There was this dude in Prescott that quoted an EPA reg that applies only to street vehicles, and then he used that to justify not selling fuel to off-roaders. A bunch of folks took his advice and now there are several more airports mis-informed, including a guy who was an airport management consultant - he could poison the well for all his clients.

The EPA reg could be construed to apply to any car such as an EP RX-7. If it started life as a post 1990 production car, there's supposedly a prohibition on running leaded fuel, even if it's on a racetrack. Tubeframe cars wouldn't seem to be affected.

As to NCC-1701, the warp drive feature helps explain how the same aircraft can be fueled in several places across the country at nearly the same point in time....

[Chris Fox]

The nearest small airport to me also won't sell avgas without a plane attached to the container. I've heard from others that other small airports have the same policy.

As to a local station providing all the gas, while I understand your reasoning, I can think of several tracks this just won't work at. Summit Point: people can arrive at the track from several directions, the nearest cities (several) are miles away, the local town can't handle the backup of people entering the race track, much less all of them blocking the narrow road in the town of Summit Point. Watkins Glen: same situation, several ways to get into the track, the small gas stations closest to the track couldn't handle the traffic, and in both cases the exposure would be minimal. Nelson Ledges is similar, but worse as far as anything close. I'm sure there are other tracks that have the same problem, these are merely a few examples. And potential in-ground tank problems, as mentioned above, would greatly concern me.

I would prefer a spec gas, but it would have to be available at every race track throughout the country and be competitively priced. Due to track contracts, I don't see this as a viable option. However I think something must be done at least at the Runoffs, and IF it's well known in advance what the specific fuel will be, and IF this fuel is available across the country and generally consistant, then everyone should have a season to obtain, test, dyno, and practice with it. FWIW, I've found Sunoco Cam II purple and blue to be consistant throughout the years, however I've seen purple fail SCCA fuel tests at Watkins Glen and Nelson Ledges, the same fuel passed at other tracks including Summit Point and Mid Ohio. Some of us switched to blue because it has always passed. I am convinced it is not the fuel itself. I watched the tests and they were done by the book. I think the testing materials, mixed with environmental conditions, are not the exact science we all wish it was. It isn't a good answer for many reasons, but there is something to be said for methanol.

[formulasuper]

By the way, what kind of aircraft uses that type of number? All regular fixed wing aircraft in the USA starts with N (designation for the USA) followed by 5 numerical digits. I guess it could be a special order number.

[D.T. Benner]

If you think switching to methanol would be better you would not believe the stuff that people could blend with it! Just a new can of worms.

[EYERACE]

guess...NCC17whatever is the number on the Enterprise from Star Trek ? one tip that works is to tell 'em that it's for testing a plane you're building at home...no tail number but it's for testing an airplane engine.

[Drivers Services]

Getting back to Mark's topic starter

Their are essentially 4 options to the fuel situation as it applies to FC, FF
pluses and minuses

1. Nationwide spec fuel. Not feasable.
With different suppliers with different regional blends of the same fuel, Different fuel companies having different fuel vendor contracts with different tracks.

2. Open fuel rule. Dangerous
The reason why we're having this conversation.

3. Fuel testing.
First tests got rid of $80 a gallon toxic super fuels. More tests added got rid of $15 semi super fuels. Tightening/Changing of the rules has gotten rid of alot bad stuff. But led to a "fuel of the week" situation.More work, more research, more time, more money.

Under these rules "tweak of the week fuels" will always be around.

Makes, safer for everyone, Unleaded pump fuel illegal (Diaelectric test).
Raised the cost for the guy that wanted to run pump fuel and made all of us have to breath more leaded fuel.
Multiple fuels pass the test allowing the competitor to show up at the track with what he chooses to run.As long as it's legal
Allows someone to show up with and practice on Av gas or some other fuel of their choice then switch to something more powerful/expensive if he chooses for q and race.
Future additional reagent tests can be added to ban other additives. Currently SCCA adds reagent tests to ban substances it finds that are unsafe.
They do not ban for additives that are expensive. If you want to ban a particular additive/fuel based on cost that's a whole other fight.


4.Spec track fuel for the Day.
So called Homer rule used in Club ford in the U.K. Supplemental regs declare a particular track fuel the spec for the day.
They then can test your fuel for an exact match against the track fuel.
Pluses
You've gotten rid of Super fuels
Could make a 100 octane UNLEADED fuel spec for the day if the track offers it. Helping everyone be healthier by less lead exposure. Make the greenies happy too.
No need to carry around drums of fuel with you
Minuses
Did someone say spec? Them's fighting words.
Go to a track with a different spec fuel, gotta get all the other stuff out of the system.
Increases cost for the guy that wanted to run something less expensive than track gas.

The SCCA could look around the country find out which fuel is most widely available at the tracks it runs at and issue a reccomended spec fuel.
IE: FF, FC rule. Sunoco unleaded GT104 is the reccommended spec track fuel if not available at the track an alternate fuel most be chosen and placed in Supps.
This would help somewhat with having to worry about cross contamination.

So there are your options, as you see nothings perfect:


If you're soley concerned about the enviorment, corner workers, crew's health, than Spec Track fuel of the Day. With it's abilty to run unleaded fuel an option is probably the best choice. However cross contamination making you fail must be considered.
If the word Spec makes you ill, you like choices
but want to balance in Safety than it's straight fuel testing that's your choice.
At least for the foeseeable future a nationwide spec fuel is not feasable. So which is it going to be guys.

1. Fuel testing

2. Spec track fuel of the day.

Jim

[size="1"][ June 17, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Drivers Services ][/size]

[Charles Warner]

Don't forget: if we are testing fuel under the reasoning of it being a health hazard (which is the main thrust as I gather) we will have to test all of the cars all of the time. No exceptions, no drawing-of-straws or cards, no waiving of the testing requirement. Each and every car will have to be tested. Then we have the issue of penalties. Draconian? Slap on the wrist?

What happens when the fuel is a "little bit" over spec? Do we have a tolerance factor? How about when a competitor is found to have a special secret compartment in the cell from which he can draw spec fuel during the testing procedure? (IMHO he should be banned from the Club permanently.)

Whatever the decision, we can not rely on the good will of racers or any such gentleman's agreement. We must have the Club establish clear, fair and enforcable rules. Write the Comp Board as Mike Sauce says. As an Advisory Board member I have seen no letters regarding a spec type fuel or anything constructive regarding the issue. Several complaints as to the current fuel testing procedure have appeared. I, for one, agree that it is unsafe to test the fuel as it comes off the track in the manner we are currently using. It would be preferable (IMO) to simply dip the cell instead of requiring a sample which is taken near the hot engine.

[Tim FF19]

Jim,

Thanks for taking the time to outline the issues from SCCA's point of view. I have run 100LL for years without a problem and it works fine. I have tried some exotic high priced stuff along the way with minimal or no difference in performance so I doubt I will pay $30 / gallon in the future. I do not have any problem with a spec fuel particularly if it is easier for SCCA to manage than the current fuel testing. I think the spec fuel idea might put an end to the super fuel of the day that forces the SCCA to continually try to keep up with the chemists. Even if there are no health issues with stuff like C44 (and I am not convinced of that) the chemists will always be looking for new ways to improve performance and still pass whatever current fuel tests are in place even if it means using something hazardous to the health of all club members. Just my 2 cents.

Tim Dunn

[Rick Kirchner]

How about only AVGAS OR Homer unleaded, including cross-contamination of the two?

Solves a couple of problems:
Allows for cheaper AVGAS, which is pretty well controlled across the country (fingerprintable).
Allows for a legal fuel for those guys who have a hard time getting gas at an FBO.
Minimizes flushing hassles.

Also, make fuel a zero-fee anonymous any-time protest - you thinks someone stinks - the tech guys pull a sample. Would get rid of the need to test everybody. Make fuel perfume an immediate disqualification - after all, it's an attempt at covering up evidence. Regions could also contact a couple of local FBOs to ensure no-hassle sales.

[Beartrax]

If we are concerned about the health of drivers, crew & workers (Thanks workers!), should we test fuel before cars go on the track? I know it could be a logistical nightmare, but when you test after qualifying or the race, the "damage" has been done. Is knowing that you may be tested enough of a deterent?

[Steve Demeter]

I think the idea of constanly improving the fuel testing to detect and outlaw toxic, expensive additives is the only way to go.

I know I talked about spec fuel, but only presented what I felt were the most viable options if that was the way things went.

As far as penalities, they ought to be equal to that for running a grossly oversize engine. That would be a good deterrent to trying to stretch the rule too far.

[John Robinson]

This might be a silly question, but wont be the first or last I ask... has anyone had C44 tested at the track? The reason I am asking is I talked to the regional Vp rep today and he didnt think that C44 was SCCA legal. He also stated that it has been either banned or not approved in most other major sanctioning bodies. As an interesting side point he also stated that it is THE MOST EXPENSIVE fuel they produce.

John

[EYERACE]

don't know why the rule change about fuel testing i proposed to SCCA is still not in fastrack this month either. my submission was acknowledged back to me by SCCA

[mark defer]

just got back from road america. after spending 4 days dealing with the fuel issue up close, a few notes.
we were quickest on both the thurs test day, and the fri practice session. to be fair, chas was still learning the track [plus he had some problems on thurs], and dave and brian skipped the test day. i don't think that anyone was running "hot" fuel on either of those 2 days. i did have the chance to run close to several of the guys who eventually outqualified me on those 2 days and i had no problem drafting and passing them on the long straights.
anyway, when qualifing started the fuel came out. we ended up being 5th quickest on both days. what was really telling though, was that although i could maintain an interval while drafting the guys mentioned above, i could no longer gain on them in the draft.
we ended up finishing 5th and running the 3rd fastest time of the race. i was fairly pleased with that considering the fact that from what i heard everyone else in the top 7 was running some type of "hot" fuel. the only other competitor in the top 10 who i'm certain wasn't was my teamate, bill jordan.
so how do i feel now? well, i'm certain that the stuff works. if you have a win at all costs attitude, it's the way to go. did it cost me by not using it? yeh, i figure about 2 positions. my teamate and i, dan bruggeman, had a monumental battle for 4th [we changed positions a minimum of 9 times by my count], yet we were still within striking distance of 3rd a few laps from the end. so i might have had a podium finish, then again, maybe not.
as i said when i started this thread, considering the negatives, it's not worth it to me for a few positions on the grid or results sheet,which is what it appears to have cost me. call me stubborn or call me stupid.
fwiw, i made it through the 4 days on 1 set of sticker tires too. hey froggie, are ya proud of me?

mark d

[size="1"][ June 21, 2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: mark defer ][/size]

[cfahan]

i propossed a gentelman's agreement to most of the front runner's in the ne division and so far all but doug n have agreed, i havent spoken to him yet. it seems to me that once every one has it - fuel, then the advantage is lost and let's face it while no one wants a spec class most of the engine rules for fc are designed to contain costs . i like this class because we get to do some tuning but still drive the wheels off the car to win. it may be the scca's role to make the final rules to eliminate this topic but until the if you guys agree to run av gas or track fuel i'll believe you.

[Dave Hopple]

*Bump*
Did we resolve anything with this thread? Or did it cool off? I think something should be done soon before the runoffs, either a gentlemens agreement,spec fuel, track fuel or better/other testing methods that gets rid of this stuff, cause IMHO this will hurt (health issues aside) particpation by raising costs.

Points are made about this being like having the latest greatest part/shocks but really it's not, it's a consumable that is really not needed in amateur club racing.

Somebody (smarter than me) needs to come up with a proposal to the BOD and we need to support it with emails and letters etc.

End of rant-Dave

[size="1"][ July 01, 2004, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Dave Hopple ][/size]

[John Goodman]

"Points are made about this being like having the latest greatest part/shocks but really it's not, it's a consumable that is really not needed in amateur club racing."

Dave, anything that can legally give a competitor 5% increase in performance is a substantial advantage, consumable or not. It is solely SCCA’s job to determine its use in club racing. Of course, competitors should make their views heard on this issue. If they do not, then there is no issue.

John Goodman

[Keith Carter]

I'm all for using track fuel just as long as the price is regulated and prices don't mysteriously jump to $8+ a gallon once the rule is mandated. Good luck on the gentleman's agreement. All it takes is for someone to have some odd smelling exhaust fumes and that would throw any agreement right out the window and we're back to square one. I can see a gentleman's agreement working between a few guys that have raced with eachother for a long time, but anything more than a few guys and it'll never work. 5HP is too much.

[Rick Silver]

Chris Fahan hit the point. If everyone knows about the fuel of the week, and runs it, then it is not an advantage. It seems all of the front runners in the NE have agreed to run Av Gas or the track fuel. I spoke with Glen at GTP and perhaps he can bring an extra drum of Av Gas to NE events for those who cant get it. At tracks like the Glen or Pocono it will make a difference, unless of course, everyone has it then the only difference is the cost of running.

The problem is that if 1 or 2 guys in the top 5 run it, then that kinda screws the deal up. If everyone agrees, Chris, Fatur, Chas, Tim Minor, John Dole, Doug Kniffin etc. then it might be a good idea to have some spot testing at tech. Not that anyone doesnt completely trust the competitors, but to eliminate any rumour or discussion. The tech guys routinely bring in the top five or so cars, and if we all agree to an open fuel testing arangement, then it will not be hard to control this. I am sure SCCA and tech will be more than happy to help.

Is there disagreement? Or if one of the top guys does not want to go along, then say it here.

[John Goodman]

"The tech guys routinely bring in the top five or so cars, and if we all agree to an open fuel testing arangement, then it will not be hard to control this. I am sure SCCA and tech will be more than happy to help."

Rick, it is my understanding that the fuel in question passes SCCA fuel tests. How would testing, random or otherwise, help with the problem? If these fuels are SCCA legal, you cannot keep someone from using them if they choose to.

John

[M.L.Sauce]

I am working on a proposal to the BOD that will have an approved list of fuels leaded and unleaded.These will be fuels that already are available at most racetracks aroung the country.Phillips,Sunoco,VP etc.The fuel testing can then be specialized to test for these fuels only.It is much easier to test for specific fuels than to test all fuels.If you are in favor of this type of rule contact your Director now.The BOD will be discussing it soon.

[Rick Silver]

Mike, that sounds like a reasonable approach. People should send emails supporting your effort to the BoD. Mike, can you list the BoD and Comp board exploder address?

John, the point is that until the SCCA does something, we have to do it ourselves. Some of us in the NE are proposing a "gentlemens agreement" which to ensure compliance would allow the competitors to watch the fuel testing. We as a group of drivers have agreed on allowed fuels and it is obvious when C44 or SR1 is tested, and that these have a very different appearance and test to Av Gas and Sunoco. There is no SCCA penalty since the fuels are legal, but I guess if someone broke the "agreement" then the penalty would be .....

[John Goodman]

"There is no SCCA penalty since the fuels are legal, but I guess if someone broke the "agreement" then the penalty would be ....."

I shudder to think, Rick but I have been on the relieving end of such a dilemma.

If enough SCCA members (don't forget the workers) petition the BOD, you should have a chance to solve this fuel issue.

John

[Bob Ramberg]

Doesn't the SCCA have an "Official Fuel" agreement with someone (Shell???) What purpose does this arrangement serve to the general membership other than some marketing hype? Why not have Shell show up at each track with a fuel bowser with the "Official Fuel of the SCCA" at a reasonable price?

[Rob Klein]

This is a dumb question and has been asked before but, how hard would it be and what would it take to make a track fuel only rule and test?

No AvGas
No C-44

Just plain old track fuel.

I know many want to use AvGas because of the price but what's the difference if you spend 3.00 more per gallon vs. having to race against competitors using C-44.

I know we use C-44 just to try to keep up with the front runners in big races but am in favor of a track fuel only rule. I have a problem with the AvGas issue because your trying to test several different fuels. If you only have to test one fuel for a pass or fail, it seems alot easier.

Rob

[BrianT1]

The official SCCA gas supplier is Sunoco, and Dan Anderson has posted earlier that for the Pro series a spcific fuel such as Sunoco can have a fingerprint test. This would make anyone not using the track approved fingerprinted fuel disqualified. The only way to make sure everyone uses the same fuel is to do it this way. Also the top three in impound should be tested not just the winner.

Brian Tomasi

[Douglas Kniffin]

I officially agree to use an SCCA Legal fuel, those are the rules we all play by, those are the rules I'm living within. If we can change the rules of the club then lets do that but, until that time those are the ones I'm working within.

[HazelNut]

[size="1"][ July 02, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: HazelNut ][/size]

[Windshadow]

I have to say this has been a VERY entertaining thread to say the least. We use blue, or purple or (pink) track fuel. I just find it interesting that we as racers find it neccessary to "keep up with the Joneses" to the point where if someone said a board in the butt made you faster, half the grid would have splinters! Haveing spent for a new set of tires every race years ago I can say I find it less of a burden to NOT P*ss away a fortune to no advantage. It seems like some of you have the right idea about "if everyone DOES NOT do it" it removes the issue. My 2 cents is that we, as a group (racers) should NOT allow people (venders) to take advantage of us! Thanks to those involved in this site for such a forum.
If this had existed in 1977 when I started I would be much richer and wiser!

[Drivers Services]

Bob,

Good Idea but not feasable with different tracks having existing vendor contracts with different companies.

Jim

[size="1"][ July 05, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Drivers Services ][/size]

[Drivers Services]

Mikes idea will work but would have to be a track fuel rule. A fingerprint test only works with a sample of the same batch. I.E. you buy your cam2 purple at sebring then go to Moroso there is a very good chance it won't match.
Also there are different regional blends of the same fuel ect.
As long as you make it clear to the competitor that yes X fuel is legal but to pass today's test you better have bought X fuel at this track today because that's where tech's base line sample came from.

Jim

[Drivers Services]

Word is FF runoffs drivers agreed today to run track fuel. It's being added to the Supps. Gibby doing the leg work. Anybody working on FC?

Jim

[Curtis Boggs]

it's great what Gib is doing, .. we don't need this trick fuel, .

I think Mike has a good solid idea, .. go to the BOD with a list of approved fuels, .. anything else is a DQ.

The trick, or part that I don't understand is how to test for them but I'm sure that can be worked out. Plus the trick fuels stick, .. so on the track it's easy to tell who's using it.

Curtis

[H82BSLO]

Funny smell doesn't mean its toxic. Don't get confused. CO is toxic, period. Sit being a Mazda warming up and you will know.

This is about $$$. This sport is expensive enough without us all spending more for the hell of it.

Lets try to keep the costs as low as possible for the good of all.

Phil Hemes.

P.S. Sean O., I can't get my RF99 going as fast as my old DB6 so don't get hung up on 97+ Van Diemens!

[bhenson]

I told you that when you were going to by the RF-99.

[Mark H]

The only gas I will use must come from a 55 gal. drum, the track gas that comes from a underground tank WILL have water in it or who knows what else?
Road Atlanta is 35 yrs. old and if the tanks are OE there is a lot of crap down there, not to mention how old is the gas in the tanks and how much of (the good stuff) in the gas down there has vented off?
Plus track gas is now $6.50 per gal. , VP c-12 is $5.00 per gal. right out of the drum (pure)?
???????