Legal fuel

[bill gillespie]

Guys,
I’m not smart enough to understand the SCCA GCR fuel table, do what % O2 is actually allowed in a legal race fuel ?

[Dave Gomberg]

Guys,
I’m not smart enough to understand the SCCA GCR fuel table, do what % O2 is actually allowed in a legal race fuel ?

At the risk of being pedantic, oxygen, as 0₂, does not exist in gasoline. There are lots of ways to introduce oxygenates into gasoline. Some are permitted (e.g., ethanol up to 10%); others are not or the amount is restricted (e.g., nitrous oxide). So, there is not a single number that describes the total oxygenates permitted.

Dave

[bill gillespie]

[QUOTE=Dave Gomberg;609300]At the risk of being pedantic, oxygen, as 0₂, does not exist in gasoline. There are lots of ways to introduce oxygenates into gasoline. Some are permitted (e.g., ethanol up to 10%); others are not or the amount is restricted (e.g., nitrous oxide). So, there is not a single number that describes the total oxygenates permitted.

Dave[/QUOTE
thanks Dave.... I think your answer explains my inability to understand all of the elements listed in the fuel table..
How do the poor tech guys deal with all the variables ?

[John Nesbitt]

[QUOTE=bill gillespie;609312]

At the risk of being pedantic, oxygen, as 0₂, does not exist in gasoline. There are lots of ways to introduce oxygenates into gasoline. Some are permitted (e.g., ethanol up to 10%); others are not or the amount is restricted (e.g., nitrous oxide). So, there is not a single number that describes the total oxygenates permitted.

Dave[/QUOTE
thanks Dave.... I think your answer explains my inability to understand all of the elements listed in the fuel table..
How do the poor tech guys deal with all the variables ?

Questions - protests or Chief Steward-initiated - about fuel chemistry are resolved by sending a sample to a lab. There is a process set out in the GCR (I do not have one near).

[Dave Gomberg]

[QUOTE=John Nesbitt;609314]

Questions - protests or Chief Steward-initiated - about fuel chemistry are resolved by sending a sample to a lab. There is a process set out in the GCR (I do not have one near).

If the Tech crew is doing fuel testing at an event (other than the Runoffs), they use a meter that measures Dielectric Constant (DC). The GCR has maximum allowed DC requirements. The DC is an indirect measure of oxygenates (and some other things). A compliant DC measure is NOT a guarantee that other non-compliant additives are not present. That is determined as John has indicated through laboratory testing. (At the Runoffs, DC and other methods are used to test whether the required track fuels are being used as specified in the Runoffs Supps.)

Dave

[halcyon]

Also, a lot of the oxygenated additives have a distinct aroma to them, which can be a give away in tech.

[John Nesbitt]

Also, a lot of the oxygenated additives have a distinct aroma to them, which can be a give away in tech.

The 'chemistry test' seems to have had a beneficial effect on fuel compliance. Before that, the DC test could be defeated. The lab test, not so much.

Anecdotal data point: I can remember occasions before the lab test, on FCY laps, getting sick on fumes from the car in front of me. After the test came in, never got sick again.

[halcyon]

The 'chemistry test' seems to have had a beneficial effect on fuel compliance. Before that, the DC test could be defeated. The lab test, not so much.

Anecdotal data point: I can remember occasions before the lab test, on FCY laps, getting sick on fumes from the car in front of me. After the test came in, never got sick again.

I wouldn't call it compliance, maybe fuel equality. Some fuels that aren't compliant now and that passed the DC test were compliant before the rule change. The rules changed because of those smart of enough to formulate a better performing fuel while still passing the DC test.

[Dave Gomberg]

I wouldn't call it compliance, maybe fuel equality. Some fuels that aren't compliant now and that passed the DC test were compliant before the rule change. The rules changed because of those smart of enough to formulate a better performing fuel while still passing the DC test.

I'm afraid you have things a bit skewed. The current fuel testing regimen was implemented at the beginning of 2010. It was created because for several years, participants (both drivers and volunteers) had been complaining about the fumes created by some cars. The BoD tasked the CRB with examining the fuel testing procedures and making recommendations to address those complaints. One of the basic "ground rules" was to address health and safety concerns, but not attempt to "level the playing field" among different fuels. Which is to say, if fuel supplier A produced a compliant fuel that was better than the compliant fuel produced by supplier B, so be it.

When the CRB recommendations went to the BoD, these "ground rules" were specifically called out in the cover materials for the new testing procedures. Every compound (or family of compounds) in the Prohibited or Restricted list in 9.3.26 appears there because of health or safety concerns. (In the presentation to the BoD, every item in the list had a reference from scientific handbooks and other literature.) Since the initial appearance of the new procedures in 2010, only three amendments to the list have been made (two of them minor adjustments to the percentages allowed).

So, yes, it is true that there were (and are) various compounds that the DC test did not detect - it just isn't a comprehensive tool. The old testing program was premised on health and safety concerns (and there were other chemical tests that could be performed under the old program that weren't very good and had their own safety issues). A new, more modern and complete test structure was needed and that's what we have now.

Dave

P.S. In case you think I'm giving you second-hand information here, you should know that I was the lead on this when I was on the CRB.

[Purple Frog]

Fuel testing, even though it was sort of a pain to implement, turned out to be a great thing for club racing.

No more 55 gallon drums in haulers that cost $25 / gallon.

Grid workers could avoid cancer.

Considering Bill's first post... it is difficult to hide one of these in an Atlantic. Just saying.

[John Nesbitt]

I wouldn't call it compliance, maybe fuel equality. Some fuels that aren't compliant now and that passed the DC test were compliant before the rule change. The rules changed because of those smart of enough to formulate a better performing fuel while still passing the DC test.

I'm afraid you have things a bit skewed. The current fuel testing regimen was implemented at the beginning of 2010. It was created because for several years, participants (both drivers and volunteers) had been complaining about the fumes created by some cars. The BoD tasked the CRB with examining the fuel testing procedures and making recommendations to address those complaints. One of the basic "ground rules" was to address health and safety concerns, but not attempt to "level the playing field" among different fuels. Which is to say, if fuel supplier A produced a compliant fuel that was better than the compliant fuel produced by supplier B, so be it.

When the CRB recommendations went to the BoD, these "ground rules" were specifically called out in the cover materials for the new testing procedures. Every compound (or family of compounds) in the Prohibited or Restricted list in 9.3.26 appears there because of health or safety concerns. (In the presentation to the BoD, every item in the list had a reference from scientific handbooks and other literature.) Since the initial appearance of the new procedures in 2010, only three amendments to the list have been made (two of them minor adjustments to the percentages allowed).

So, yes, it is true that there were (and are) various compounds that the DC test did not detect - it just isn't a comprehensive tool. The old testing program was premised on health and safety concerns (and there were other chemical tests that could be performed under the old program that weren't very good and had their own safety issues). A new, more modern and complete test structure was needed and that's what we have now.

Dave

P.S. In case you think I'm giving you second-hand information here, you should know that I was the lead on this when I was on the CRB.

A quick follow up to Dave's reply.

Prior to 2010, there were prohibitions on certain chemicals/additives. There just was not any good way of enforcing the rule.

From the 2009 GCR, a section of 9.3.25.A:

Use of propylene oxide, ethylene oxide, paradioxane, and basic nitrogen

or sulfur-bearing compounds (i.e. pyridine, aniline, pyrrole, dimethylsulfoxide,

etc.) is prohibited.

The 2010 changes ushered in a more comprehensive list of banned substances, as well as a meaningful enforcement tool. And, as Dave points out, health and safety were drivers, as well as performance.

[bill gillespie]

Fuel testing, even though it was sort of a pain to implement, turned out to be a great thing for club racing.

No more 55 gallon drums in haulers that cost $25 / gallon.

Grid workers could avoid cancer.

Considering Bill's first post... it is difficult to hide one of these in an Atlantic. Just saying.

Froggy...sounds like a challenge ????

[R. Pare]

Froggy...sounds like a challenge ????

Had a friend with a Crossle way back when that had the whole frame plumbed for nitrous - it worked like a charm, but he was still slow!

[reidhazelton]

If we are concerned with health and safety, when do we ban leaded fuels? I mean, I'll breath as deep as the next person when a race car rolls by, but I know I shouldn't.

[Offcamber1]

I was the lead on this when I was on the CRB.

[Raleigh]

If we are concerned with health and safety, when do we ban leaded fuels? I mean, I'll breath as deep as the next person when a race car rolls by, but I know I shouldn't.

careful what you wish for, we have just gone through the leaded race fuel phase out in Oz. I bet your EPA is itching to Drop the Axe on leaded fuel.

[reidhazelton]

careful what you wish for, we have just gone through the leaded race fuel phase out in Oz. I bet your EPA is itching to Drop the Axe on leaded fuel.

Not so much wishing, just asking. Lead is a pretty serious toxin. What was your experience with the transition away from leaded fuels?

[Raleigh]

Not so much wishing, just asking. Lead is a pretty serious toxin. What was your experience with the transition away from leaded fuels?

slight increase in Peak power, A few Dollars per litre price increase (1Us Gal is 3.78lt) Many chase lower rpm response issues in carby engines and we have swapped T.E.L exposure for MTBE which is banned in most of the US States due to Claimed major health effects.The exhaust fumes given off by Some of the fuel types Cause your eyes to water and coughing A bit like standing at the start line of a Top Fuel drag meet.