Fuel testing GCR 17.4.2

[Tim Reed]

What does everyone think about this?

" 2001 SCCA CLUB RACING RULE CHANGES
Addendum 2
Racing Memo 01-03 - Enforcement of GCR 17.4.2 Fuel Sample Acquisition

As a result of compliance inspections during early season events and from
experience gained at the 2000 Valvoline Runoffs, the Competition Board has
asked that all Competitors and Scrutineers be reminded that GCR Section
17.4.2 states:

"All cars shall be equipped with an easily accessible port located
between the fuel tank and the carburetor(s) or fuel injectors to
facilitate acquisition of fuel samples. If possible, this port should
not be located in the engine compartment. Cars equipped with a factory
fuel pressure test port (e.g. fuel injected SS, T, IT, SRF, etc.) are
not required to have an additional fuel sampling port. Where a factory
test port exists, competitors shall provide the appropriate tooling
necessary to safely obtain a fuel sample from this port. On all other
cars, it is recommended that a securely capped T-fitting be installed
in the fuel line. A manned fire extinguisher shall be present whenever
fuel samples are being acquired."

Competitors and Scrutineers are reminded that the installation of proper
fuel testing ports and/or the use of appropriate tooling (SS, IT, T, SRF,
etc) to safely obtain a fuel sample is an important safety measure.
Ideally, this is an area that should be routinely inspected during Annual
Inspection of every car. In any case, appropriate measures shall be taken to
see that all cars are in compliance throughout the season. Removal of fuel
lines from carburetors and/or fuel rails presents a significant potential
problem that can be avoided when an appropriate means of sample collection
is available."

[Tab]

It stinks. Its dangerous. Its another possibility for a leak or a line to be torn loose.

[Tom Johnson]

I just shake my head most of the time when I read what the SCCA tech guys dream up.

When you crack the seal on the tee, the fuel will still leak all over the place due to the residual pressure in the line. Plus, I'd be willing to bet more than a few guys will forget to tighten the tee and wind up with a DNF or worse yet, catch fire in their pit or on the track.

Second, this rule has been put in place to support fuel rules that do nothing except add frustration and anxiety for most competitors.

Tab said it best. It stinks. But like everybody else, sometime in the next few weeks I'll spend the 20 minutes and $20 to put the dang thing in. Sorry about the rant. The stupidity of the whole fuel thing puts a burr under my saddle.

[DDMike]

Those of you that require extra ballast should benefit from this latest fuel rule.
A tool box loaded with everything needed at impound will ultimately have to be fitted somewhere in the car! Not all of us have the luxury of a pit crew.

But seriously, the rule does stink and as previously mentioned dangerous due to possibility for leaks and subsequent fires that could result.

Mike W.

[Rex Gunning]

I'm with you guys. The last thing we need is another fitting in a fuel system. It just increases the chance of a leak or worse yet a mistake if you forget to close it off properly. This idea of fuel testing just pisses me off. It would be a great idea if there was some consistancy but, there's never been any consistancy to this rule as long as I can remember so I don't see anything changing now. Besides, It's crazy when sixteen dollar a gallon Elf superfuel will pass but some pump gases at 2.75 a gallon won't......go figure. If they go by specific gravity it will be a joke.....That doesn't tell you sh__!

[Daniel]

As already well stated, this is a stupid rule (leaks, fire risk, etc.). The T-fitting is "recommended" not required. No competent tech inspector (o.k., that rules out most of them) would require an additional fitting in a hose that is only 12-16 inches long. I'm just going to pull the hose off the carb inlet, an easily accessible port. That will be no more a "significant potential problem" or any less safe than pulling the cap off a fitting three or four inches away. Does this make sense to anyone or am I just being obstinate?

[This message has been edited by Daniel (edited March 12, 2001).]

[Mike B]

I totally agree with Daniel. I read the word "recommended" and thought: thanks for the "recommendation" but I'll do it my way. In my opinion, the fitting at the base of my carb is an "easily accessible port," and I only need a screwdriver to open it.
However, I'm not looking forward to the first tech inspector that interprets (incorrectly) that a "recommended" T-fitting is "required."
Hell, I never get impounded, so what am I worried about anyway?

As a side note, can someone explain to me what the intent of the fuel rule is? It sure can't be to reduce cost, as Rex points out. By the way, Rex, where did you get such a good deal on the Elf superfuel?

------------------
Mike Beauchamp
RF95

[John Bach]

Here is the word from the boss. I sent an email to Sven Pruett, Technical Manager for Club Racing. Here is my email and his reply.
------------------------------------
Mr. Pruett,

I have a question concerning acquiring fuel samples on Formula
Continental. This may apply to other Formula cars as well but I run and
understand the FC. I have read and believe I understand the intent of
Racing Memo 01-03. On our cars we have a fuel line that is approximately
16" long. It will not be any longer because we are required to run the
stock mechanical pump. A T-fitting in this line creates 3 additional
opportunities for leaks in a very short distance. There is no increase in
safety compared to removing the line from the carburetor since there will
always be residual pressure in the line. If we attempted to create a fuel
sample acquisition point away from the engine, we would need to run a line
4 or 5 feet behind the carburetor which would leave it in a potentially
vulnerable position for damage. The fuel line is on the cold side of the
engine (exhaust is on the other side). The Memo "recommends" a
T-fitting. Are we in violation of any rule, explicit or implied, if we do
not use a T-fitting? Obviously I would like to keep a solid line from the
pump to the carburetor. If you agree that the T-fitting is superfluous, or
at least not required in this environment, what should we tell tech
inspectors who are quoting rules?

Thank you for your time.

John Bach

-------------------
His reply
-------------------

John,

In short, the rule will indeed require either a "t" fitting or some form of
dedicated sampling valve/port in the fuel line somewhere between the cell
and the carburetor. Removal of the fuel line from the carburetor is no
longer an acceptable means of acquiring a sample. My own personal favorite
is a small sample valve. Most major AN suppliers have valves or quick
disconnect fittings designed for this purpose. Usually, they allow a piece
of hose to be attached to the valve port, making pressure relief and sample
gathering very easy and much safer than line removal.

Sven Pruett
Technical Manager
SCCA Club Racing
spruett@scca.org
800-770-2055

[Tim Reed]

Doesn't sound like he gets it....

[Mike B]

Sorry, Sven. Not gonna do it.

[El Guapo]

Mike, I will do my best to explain the intent of the rule. BTW, I am not any more thrilled than any of you guys about the idea of installing a leak in the fuel line. Having said that, the intent of the rule is for a very good reason. Last year I raced in a region where I had not been in a long time. There were a couple of cars there that had a very noticable, and very weird smell when I got behind them on the track. I learned later that this smell is caused by an additive called poypropelene oxide. This stuff gives gasoline a big octane boost. It is also an airborne carcinogen. Studies have shown that people who are exposed to this stuff routinely develop cancer. The danger is not so much to the driver of the car using polypropelene oxide, but to the corner workers, grid workers, crew members, and, of course, follwing drivers who breath the fumes. SCCA is not the only sanctioning organization to become aware of this problem. NHRA, NASCAR, etc. are also having to address ways to prevent competitors from using this nasty chemical. Hope this helps.

EG

[Rex Gunning]

Just where in the hell do they expect a SAFE fuel sampling fitting to be run on formula car that has a fuel cell that's probably somewhere between 8 to 12 inches from the fuel pump and a fuel pump less than 10 inches from the carb? Any way you want to visualize this...there is no completely SAFE place to run a sampling fitting. What the heck is wrong with diconnecting the hose fitting from the carb on a FC car to get a fuel sample? It's no more SAFE or UNSAFE than doing it anywhere else on a FC car. If you open a line between the fuel cell and the fuel pump your still going to have fuel going everywhere even if you put a fitting in. At least on my car you will. I'd also like to know exactly what the fuel sampling critera is. I have no heart burn about the idea of sampling fuel. However, is the AV-GAS that I've been using or the TURBO-BLUE I've been using at two to four dollars a gallon going to be legal? If not, am I going to have to buy the 10 to 20 dollar a gallon superfuel to be competitive that some wizard has managed to brew and increases horse power dramatically but will pass the fuel test? What I see happening here is another substantial increase in my cost to go racing. At this point in time I'd be happy with making everybody run the same fuel...have fun enforcing that one. Maybe it's time for me to hang up my helmet after 26 years. This particular deal just fires me up because we all know that people are out there running hot fuel. We've complained about it years ago. It's just the way SCCA goes about trying to manage it always seems to increase the cost of racing at the expense of the competitor. OK I'M DONE NOW!

[Mike B]

Thanks, EG. That does help explain it. I've heard of "POP" but only in karting circles and have never encountered it in SCCA. In fact, I thought it was illegal years ago. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm still not installing a leak in my fuel system, though...

------------------
Mike Beauchamp
RF95

[Bullitt]

Is "Polypropelene oxide" (sic) something new? I was under the impression that from almost day 1 in FF and presumably also FC some have tried using something called propylene oxide. It always has been illegal and also not very effective as it tends to vaporize at the normal ambient temperatures we encounter.

If you ever have a hold on the grid and actually shut down motors, the guy(s) on propylene oxide will start venting a white cloud from the carb air intake. (Remember such an event from a Pro race practice in the '70's -- seemed like every other car was venting.) Also, if you see a competitor filling his FC or FF with chilled fuel that is another thing which should arouse suspicions.


Our current fuel rule is due to the nasty stuff pioneered by Elf when F1 fuel was supposed to be "pump gas" (middle 1980'2, I think). Elf and the other companies always will be at least three (3) steps ahead of the SCCA. SCCA is not smart enough to go up against the super chemists and it only hurts the majority of the competitors.

The simplest rule for now would be to say everyone must run the track gas which cannot cost more than $x.00/gal ($4.00, Maybe?). Continue fuel sampling but its now a quick comparison against a track gas sample. Sure, some can find a way to beat (or at least confuse that) but not with the Mega $ witches brews.

As to the details of fuel sample ports, etc. -- its late and I don't want to get started on that one.

Bob Layman

[John Bach]

For those who have not seen this, here is a site with a list of fuels and their tested values. http://www.nogal.com/hideseng/index.htm

These are supposed to be the same results as the SCCA test. Any fuel listed with a test result of 0 or negative is legal.

Rex - Av-gas is legal (ours passed tech) and 1 version of Turbo Blue is legal.

[Tom Johnson]

There are a number of additives including Prop-Oxy that they're probably looking for, including Nitromethane, Benzene, alcohols, and a really sneaky and nasty one called 1,4 dioxane.

I suspect this last one is the compound they are most interested in controlling, since it will pass a dielectric and water miscibility test, but fail the reagent test. It does produce power, but has the slight disadvantage of being a carcinogen and a mutagen. Neither of these would seem to be desirable. Interestingly enough, you can't buy it from a chemical company without practically an act of Congress, but it is available in a 50% mix (the rest is just hydrocarbon floor sweepings) from one of the largest karting fuel and additive suppliers!

I'm sure there are other whiz-bang compounds out there but I quit chea.. um, experimenting with fuels a while back and I'm not really a chemist anyway. So now I just run av-gas and don't worry about outsmarting the tech man.

BTW, Bob is 100% right in his idea of the common fuel. Let the competitors buy at the track and test to a known track sample for dielectric and specific gravity! Simple.