New Fuel Rules - No more VP-MR9

[Gary Slahor]

I know you guys are probably already on top of this, but just as a matter of general interest, I faxed the new SCCA fuel rules to the head chemist over at VP racing fuels to see if their MR9 or MRX01 products are still acceptable for use in FB, and here's an excerpt from his reply:

Gary,
MR9 and MRX01 are no longer legal fuels for SCCA. The following fuels of ours should be fine with your class in SCCA. I would also recommend that you verify with the SCCA fuel tech at the track (dielectric) to make sure there is no problem in using the fuel you select from the list: C10, C11, C12, C14, C14Plus, C15, C16, C19, C23, C25, C921, C921RT, Import, VP100, Late Model, Late Model Plus, MR8, MS103, MS93, MS96, MS98L, NO2, MS109, MS101, PWC-B, RT105, SM100, VP Sportsman, SV-05, TBX, VP110C, VP113, 2BBL, and VP Blue are allowed in your class

Duane

[jjstecher]

So I take it that's MR11 as well then?

What about my Kwiktrip / sugar blend I am putting in Niki's tank this year when he's not looking?

[RussMcB]

Gary, I'm not too familiar with those VP fuels, so not sure what the impact is. Have people been using them because the make good HP in stock motorcycle engines, and/or they are available at good prices?

[jjstecher]

Expensive as hell yes. Make more horse power yes. Just ask any local bike racer what they run. Answer is pretty definitive.

[RussMcB]

OK. So, this is a good thing then, right?

[Wren]

OK. So, this is a good thing then, right?

From a safety standpoint it might be.

There were still barrels of C44 at Sebring. I don't think this rule is going to lower costs any.

[Brett Lane]

I was familiar with VP fuels until I saw them all. For instance, I thought C10, C11, 12, 14, etc was 100 octane, 110, 120, 140, and so on. then I saw C16, 18 ,19, 23, 25, 900,
Octane 101, 102, 202(for the college bound), Then some with letter designations. Whoah!

[VSeaber]

Not to disagree with the folks at VP but... we've tested some of these fuels for dielectric constant and they DO NOT pass. Some are well over the allowed DC. They make power however! I expect the list was based on the chemical content of the fuels.

One complexity of the new fuel rule is that it takes lab testing to determine the makeup of the fuels- we all will have to go by what the fuel manafacturer says is in them. But then again, I doubt there will be a lot of the lab testing going on.

This will change the dynamic quite a bit for most classes as the DC of 15 allows quite a bit of 'hot' fuels to be used.

They are already in use in FB's- many of the top runners at the ARRC were using them.

Thanks-
Victor Seaber
VIPER Engine and Drivetrain Lab
www.viperservice.com

[glenn cooper]

Yo Victor, Judging by smell alone, I only know of 1 FB car at the ARRC that had the very- soon-to-be illegal fuel (although perfectly legal on the date of the ARRC 11/7/09). When you mention many of the top cars in FB at that race, were you aware of others that may have had some other less smelly high priced fuel?
The performance of the top 4 or 5 cars was quite similar.
I ran/run 100 Unleaded from the track.
GC

[VSeaber]

Coop-

Sorry, should have said 'Some' of the folks at the ARRC were using the fuels. I thought I smelled more than one--

And I'm not implying that anything illegal is going on- quite the opposite. Personally I don't see it as any different from running sticker tires for each qualifying session-- speed is expensive, how fast do you want to go?

The major point of the post was that some of the fuels in the list from VP don't pass dielectric. We've got a meter now in our shop if anyone needs to check-- drop by at the VIR Nationals.

[RussMcB]

I'm too lazy to research this myself. Can someone tell me in layman's terms what the 2010 fuel rules mean for FB?

Does it affect the choices available to the low budget racer? In other words, can I still use track/pump/aviation gas?

My assumption is the goal of the new rules was to reduce the use of unhealthy fuels. Is that accurate? I hope so.

Personally, I don't care if someone uses exotic, expensive fuel to get extra HP, as long as it doesn't introduce unwanted health risks. Like Victor mentioned earlier, it's no different than buying sticker tires for every session.

[jjstecher]

I just wish there was really a clear description of what the fuel can be or what types are allowed. Its retarded to have to keep asking and testing at each race. Last year I went with VP fuels cause my local gas from Minnesota here tested bad at the first race even though it was just generic kwiktrip 92 octane.

All I ask for is a simple list...these are allowed, these arent allowed. Or a simple formula to figure out looking at a fuel suppliers website what is legal and what is not.

[glenn cooper]

Yeah Vic, I wasn't gettin' all agro or anything, just wondering...
Thanks for the offer to check DC on fuels while at VIR.

John, The whole issue is consistency, as in there is not enough for a blanket statement of "If you use Coop Co 120 Octane, it will pass the SCCA specifications...", therefore the specs are listed, and we are then tasked with making sure the fuel we choose actually will pass. Yeah it sucks, but there really is no other way.

That's one reason I run the fuel from each track; I believe the SCCA tech folks actually test track fuel each weekend and post a sign to that effect.

Russ, you are still considering running pump swill with a soon to be brand new fuel cell?
Sacre bleu!

GC

[jjstecher]

Yeah I understand Coop I just wish it was easier. I don't mind paying 8/gallon for track gas but at the same time I would rather pay 8/gallon for go fast fuel. I just feel like I'm getting ripped off and damnit I dont like it.

Can someone point a dumbass like me to the regulations? Then I can dig out my local gas (not the burrito type) and get it tested as well as some others so I am minimize my costs this year.

[glenn cooper]

the point being that the lack of consistency requires you to have the fuel checked each weekend, or if purchased by the barrel, then checking IT.
-G

[RussMcB]

Russ, you are still considering running pump swill with a soon to be brand new fuel cell?

Not sure. Haven't bought one yet. Eagle seemed to indicate their materials would stand up to it. I'll ask them specifically about it, and if draining the cell in between races makes a difference.

I kinda think my 15 year old cell really deteriated when there was a pin hole leak (or two), and then the outside of the cell got soaked, sitting in a pool of gas for months, and started separating from the middle weave material.

A zillion street bikes run pump gas every day, it's about one third the cost of the cheapest race fuel, and I can get it on every street corner between here and the race track. It sure would be nice to use street gas. It was one of the reasons the FB lass was attractive to me. I hate the hassles associated with race fuel buying, transporting, etc.

[Purple Frog]

Not an expert here. But now you can run a fuel as long as the dielectric is less than a +15. (OBTW this is also true for other classes such as FC, etc.)

That should be most pump gas. BUT... If the pump gas has too much ethenol, or alcohol, or E85, whatever, it could go over +15. Different geographic areas of the country get different pump blends depending on things like climate, state laws, or who put what in the tank by mistake. That being the case the 91 octane Cooper gas you buy at the pump in Oakwood Georgia, could be very different than the 91 octane Cooper gas you buy at the pump in Danville Virginia, or Watkins Glen New York, or Mansfield Ohio.... etc., etc.

Every test done on the Sunoco unleaded race fuel sold at places like M-O and VIR has passed to date, but that isn't as cheap as pump gas off track.

[jjstecher]

So if its a dielectric rating of +15 that is legal then nothing has changed since last year...ok my heads starting to hurt.

Does anyone have a real pointer to the real rules? The GCR confirms the above statement of +15 being legal and I see nothing else preventing any sort of gas. Thus all the fuels you could use last year are legal this year. Which means my local 92 is probably still illegal but MR9, MR11 are legal.

[TimW]

Does anyone have a real pointer to the real rules? The GCR confirms the above statement of +15 being legal and I see nothing else preventing any sort of gas. Thus all the fuels you could use last year are legal this year. Which means my local 92 is probably still illegal but MR9, MR11 are legal.

Google is your friend: http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...hp?p=237527#88

[VSeaber]

[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]This is my interpretation of the fuel rules and a little history.

Ethanol is added in varying amounts to pump gas. It depends on the area of the country and time of year how much ethanol may be in your pump gas- up to 10% is a generally assumed number. Anything over is assumed to be a threshold for potential issues (fuel line deterioration, hard starting).

SCCA used to control most classes with a 0% dielectric constant rule and reagent chemical testing. The 0% dielectric was designed to eliminate oxygenated fuels. I say designed to as there are masking agents that may be added to fuels that reduce the DC of the fuels.

Chemical testing (Reagent A etc.) was done to spot some of the really nasty chemicals in fuel. I heard a rumor that the tech folks didn't like doing this type of testing due to the chemicals involved- understandable.

Ethanol was added to street gas to replace MTBE which was found to be seeping into groundwater. MTBE became a legal liability and major fuel producers (Sunoco for example) eliminated MTBE in their race fuel as well. This had two effects: street gas now regularly failed the DC testing and the oxygenated race fuels (which used to have MTBE and now had Ethanol) moved up the DC scale. MTBE reads less dielectric than Ethanol per amount of oxygen in the fuel.

SCCA moved to introduce the DC of +15 for some classes which would allow both street gas and oxygenated grades such as Sunoco GT 100 to meet. GT 100 is around 12-13 DC going from memory. Street gas varies.

Side note: I have seen a 'passed' on fuel pumps at tracks for the street gas with a DC of say 1-2 or 3 also marked on the sheet. Issue here is the fuel is legal for the 15 DC limit, not the majority of classes with a 0 limit. I suspect a lot of this was run by mistake. A non-issue now with the changes.

Now looks like everyone has the +15 limit (which allows quite a bit of oxygenate) as well as a chemical composition test. The test method may be found online but basically a test sample would be sent to a laboratory for chemical analysis. Unfortunately the competitor has no way of knowing the chemical composition and we all will need to go by the chemical analysis from the race gas producer. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[Dave Gomberg]

At the risk of sounding like a scold, please read the GCR 9.3.26.A. Also, if you have the October, 2009 SportsCar, read the article on page 52 (at least I think it was page 52).

We cannot make a list of fuels that will or will not pass the DC or lab tests because we have no idea whether a fuel made or blended under a particular name will be made to the same "formula" next week or next month or next year. Most street fuels should be OK, but the DC should be checked. Race fuels vary all over the place. There are manufacturers that make fuels some of which will pass the lab tests and some that don't. The note that listed a bunch of VP fuels that would pass lab tests probably did not take into account DC. But, at least VP provided that information. Ask your fuel maker/blender the about their fuels.

Dave