Apology

Dear FB community,

I got the call from a steward of the Seattle race who informed me that the VP U4.4 fuel did not pass their fuel test. My penalties are: DQ'd from the race, $350.00 bond fee, and a 3 month suspension of my license. The last penalty will take me out of the Run Offs.

I apologize to Stohr Cars, Hoosier Tires, F1000 Pro Series, and to you, the FB community, for any negativity/hardship that my action has caused. Had I known the possibility of such a severe penalty was there, I would never have chanced the VP fuel.

I will try to appeal the penalty, but not counting on much. Sorry again guys, I just feel sick about the whole situation.

Sincerely,

J.R. Osborne

Possibly the fuel was the tip of the FB iceberg in Seattle. We may see more fall before year-end.

See you next year.

Russ

JR
I know it took a lot to make a public apology like this and my respect for you just went up an order of magnitude.

We will see you next season.....and hopefully the F1000 PRO SERIES will be a legit PRO SERIES then.

Sorry to hear about your penalties.

I'm curious as to why the suspension - seems a bit harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JRO183

Had I known the possibility of such a severe penalty was there, I would never have chanced the VP fuel.

---

Does that mean you didn't know it was an illegal fuel, or you knew but thought it would carry a lighter penalty if you were caught?

JRO,

You don't need fuel to be fast.

See you next year.

'nough said:thumbsup:

Wow, lots of interesting private messages!

All you legal guys, come on down (up?) to Miller in a month for a fantastic season ender. We have 7 local FB cars here so we could really have a romp. Randy Mitchell has his Nova Dieman dialed on the west track and for now is the guy to beat! (You're welcome Randy).

Leave your milled heads and hot fuel at home. And remember, the (2 yr old) Portland FB lap record stands with a cable operated shifter operated completely by the driver!

Russ

if there are any turns at Portland that require more than 3 downshifts? 4?

4 down at the chicane for me.

Although I understand and agree that cheating should be dealt with appropriately I think that a 3 month suspension for fuel is way too harsh. I personally would not have known (and alot of other people from what I gather) it was illegal to use U4. I used it all through my Motorcycle racing time and I would have used it if it wasn't so damn expensive. Ignorance is no defense but damn that rule book is thick. I just stuck with the 6 page FB rules and didn't see anything about fuel.
What I think is the real F*cked up part of all this is that the guys that run this series were hanging out wiith JR the night before having drinks and BSing. They saw the U4 that night and asked about the fuel and never said to him that it was illegal and would be protested. Where is the sense of community and being a man and confronting someone about breaking the rules before you throw their whole season and investment out window. I was not there that night but if the story I got was what went down it's not the way it should have been handled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

I personally would not have known (and alot of other people from what I gather) it was illegal to use U4. I used it all through my Motorcycle racing time and I would have used it if it wasn't so damn expensive. Ignorance is no defense but damn that rule book is thick. I just stuck with the 6 page FB rules and didn't see anything about fuel.

---

I'm an outsider in this, but I frankly don't see how you could miss the fact that U4.4 is not legal for SCCA competition. Here's the banner from the VP website - see the first seven words (bolded).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VP Racing Fuels

New! U4.4™

If you’re not bound by fuel rules, this leaded fuel is the best choice for virtually any powersports application, offering the biggest gain vs. cost of any performance part you can buy

---

Again, I didn't know it was illegal (not a good excuse). The first seven words in the VP website you point out says nothing about not being legal for SCCA. Plus I never had a reason to go to the VP website for anything. Again, I'm not trying to saying this rule isn't relevant I just think a 3 month suspension it's a little harsh.

the penalty has more to do with not being compliant as in running 12" rear wheels, or having a 'Busa engine stuffed in the back.

One of the main reasons for making the "exotic" fuels illegal as of 1-1-11 was the detrimental health effects to everyone that would be exposed to any component, burned or unburnt, liquid or vapour of certain fuels.

That would include driver, crew, grid, starter, the guy that directs L or R coming out of the false grid, tech, etc...
I see this (potentially) as more of a health/well being thing than a typical protest/fine type deal.

EVERYTIME I have been near that car (ARRC '09 and '10, Pacific '11) it has had a distinct odor, actually a bit sickening. There were other cars that had this odor also, Lewis at ARRC '08. Were these fuels illegal at the time? I don't know. Are they illegal now, I couldn't tell ya...

JR and I had a conversation at ARRC '10 where we were both running as FS cars, due to both of us having competed at Runoffs. I made mention to him that this could quite possibly be the last time he'd be able to run "that stinky fuel", again, not knowing if it was oxygenated/illegal or not - just that it was stinky, hence the "possibly".
JR's response was something to the effect of "We are running FS this weekend".
My reply was something like "It won't matter after 12/31/10, as new fuel rule takes effet 1-1-11.

I like JR, I've had a clean race with the guy at ARRC '09 when we had a bit of a 3 or way dice with Coello and DeLao. I'm not at all trying to bust anyone's balls, just writing about what I experienced.

JP, it's up to everyone that runs to know what's legal and not. Here's a hint - when the dyno shows the gains typical of this fuel (I have heard anything from 8-12HP in FB), THAT might be a prompt to check the GCR.

At the race in Seattle, I was a bit suprised at how quickly some in the pack were pulling away. I race all the time with the fastest FB in the world and he don't pull me like that. At tech/impound for Pacific Raceways Monday's race (the one I drove in FB) the sick smell was gone, but replaced with something that seemed to mask the sick odor, almost like a fruity smell. I know this cause y'all have seen the size of my schnoz - I'm part bloodhound!

I have ALLWAYS run the track fuel, usually the 98 Sunoco GTX. There was a bit of a brouhaha in US Superbike series lately cause a guy failed the fuel test - turned out it was Sunoco GT (oxygenated or whatever), and NOT the GTX. They claimed the barrel which they had purchased (and not AT THE TRACK btw as suggested by series officials) and brought with them must have been mislabeled.

Funny thing - at Rd Am, maybe a year or two ago, I was asked to voluntarily submit a fuel sample to an SCCA official. They wanted to get some data together, in lieu of the upcoming fuel reg's. I was asked what fuel I run and I replied allways track fuel, mostly Sunoco, but I think there may be a track or two that has something else.
I had run 110 Sunoco sometimes that year at the insistence of my engine guy at that time - he said it helped the engine run cooler. I was of the opinion it was wasting money/octane as the Ocatne Requirement of these engines is no where near even 93!
I have never purchased, nor poured into my car, nor has anyone else poured anything into any car that I have owned, ever, that cost more than $10/gallon, or has that stinky/sickeningly sweet odor.

I was later told by the official that there were very minute traces of some soon to be illegal compounds. Pretty carzy, huh? I have my own fuel jugs, purchase my own fuel, yet the test comes back showing what it did. I think my reply was something to the effect of "Well then I guess your test is F'd!" All good natured like...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

Although I understand and agree that cheating should be dealt with appropriately I think that a 3 month suspension for fuel is way too harsh. I personally would not have known (and alot of other people from what I gather) it was illegal to use U4. I used it all through my Motorcycle racing time and I would have used it if it wasn't so damn expensive. Ignorance is no defense but damn that rule book is thick. I just stuck with the 6 page FB rules and didn't see anything about fuel.
What I think is the real F*cked up part of all this is that the guys that run this series were hanging out wiith JR the night before having drinks and BSing. They saw the U4 that night and asked about the fuel and never said to him that it was illegal and would be protested. Where is the sense of community and being a man and confronting someone about breaking the rules before you throw their whole season and investment out window. I was not there that night but if the story I got was what went down it's not the way it should have been handled.

---

Anyone racing in the SCCA needs to read all the rules in the GCR General section in addition to their class rules. I'm just sayin'. ;)

My understanding is that U4.4 was legal last year (but not this year due to the new rule on MTBE) if mixed with enough 93 unleaded. Am I correct on that, or did mixing it only get it to pass the DC test at the track?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkejt

My understanding is that U4.4 was legal last year (but not this year due to the new rule on MTBE) if mixed with enough 93 unleaded. Am I correct on that, or did mixing it only get it to pass the DC test at the track?

---

My understanding is that U4.4 was never legal straight out of the can as the DC was over 15. Mixing it with enough of something else would have made it legal for the DC test.

The main oxygenator in U4.4 is MTBE and that was legal last year. There was a ban on acyclic ethers and MTBE is a cyclic ether. I never talked to VP tech support specifically about U4.4 so I don't know if it included any other banned components, but I think it was in the same group as MR9 and MS109 where it was legal last year and would not be legal this year.

Jp directly after Nicholas spoke with jr that night and held up the can of u4 he came back Nd told me what jr was running. He's quote was that's good stuff but you know it's not legal in a rAce or qualify. When we smelled it after the race then he protested. Do t want to start something just want to clarify

really none of my business but when Nicholas saw the fuel and knew it wasnt legal did he talk to JR about it ? If not a 3 month suspension could have been avoided by 2 competitors just sitting down to talk. Possible JR had no idea it wouldnt pass ( yes at the end of the day its his job to know). Now if they did talk and JR chose to run it anyway then well.....

Do penalties need to "fit the crime" OR do they need to be sufficient enough to alter the undesired behaviour? I think they are rarely one and the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkejt

Does that mean you didn't know it was an illegal fuel, or you knew but thought it would carry a lighter penalty if you were caught?

---

The answer to this question would shed a lot of light on the topic.

I can't quite come to grips with how someone (especially someone with an expectation of winning), could go to the effort to obtain a high cost fuel and not find out first if it could be used at an SCCA event. That's much more relevent than what was or wasn't said before a protest.

In most cases, competitors should welcome protests and be flattered.

The typical outcomes of protests are:
1. Innocent verdict.
2. Guilty verdict (caught knowingly cheating).
3. Guilty verdict (unaware they were cheating - should have known the rules)
4. Guilty verdict (pushing the envelope - accepting the risk that it might be ruled illegal)

Last year we ran VP MR12 occasionally as it passed DC constant and was deemed legal to the rules. I spoke with a VP rep and showed him the new fuel rule. He suggested using U4.4. When I showed it to Belling, his comment was just verification that the fuel was fine to use.

No excuses though, it's still on me.

I don't think VP will disclose the exact composition, but the MSDS for U4.4 lists MTBE concentration of between 6 and 50%. The rule allows a max of 3.0%.

JR, I too was told by a VP rep last year from the Main office that MR12 is a legal fuel to use in SCCA competition. Not being a chemist and untrusting of salesmen in general, I sent a message to a VP chemist and she confirmed that MR12 is not legal. SO I asked what is the best legal fuel to use and was directed to U4.4. After using this stuff for a couple of races I sent another request for clarification and received back from VP that U4.4 is not a legal fuel because of the O2 content. Again we asked and had two verifications that MS101 is perfectly legal for SCCA. so that is what we are using today....it will probably change later.

Just sharing my experience with trying to find the best legal fuel to use. Some folks don't understand that to win at the national level takes fine tuning EVERY aspect of your racing program. I think the 3 month suspension forcing you to miss the Runoffs(where it is spec fuel) is 100% BS...

Darryl Wills

Perhaps there should be an equalizer, and that being everyone uses the same fuel...86 octane pump gas. I believe that this was a topic of discussion here on the message boards under FB.

I also believe that there was a lot of input about ignition of fuel in the engines and that the lower octane fuels burn better.

This is amatuer racing and I agree with the one poster ....that once the protester knew the competitor was using the U4.4 fuel, it should have been a topic of discussion between the drivers. It is not worth setting trends and causing suspensions over a cheap trophy, the need for a podium finish, and no compensation for a win. It is only a ego thing. We are all out for fun, in a great sport with great racing machines.

Sorry to hear that a good driver who has a good reputation amoung his peers had to be suspended for 3 months. I have never met the suspended driver but know of his reputation and driving skills from his own competitors here on ApexSpeed.

Lets leave this driver be, as I am sure ....he his sufferring enough knowing that he is out of his racing machine for 3 months.

By next racing season, this issue will have passed and will not be a big deal. Time heals all wounds.

-- this kind of problem looks ridiculous.

Everyone should use pump gas. The SAME pump gas. You get it at the track, put it in your race car. Everyone fills up from the same spiggot.

What are we doing, testing fuels to improve the breed? No. So why is ANYONE trying to get the last increment of hp by getting cute with strange smelling fuel blends?

Let's all run on the same gasoline. A simple solution to a problem that should NOT BE A PROBLEM.

This is supposed to be auto racing. Not some kind of chemestry competition. Lord, gentlemen...

Chris Crowe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Crowe

-- this kind of problem would look ridiculous.

Everyone should use pump gas. The SAME pump gas. You get it at the track, put it in your race car. Everyone fills up from the same spiggot.

---

That's a great common-sense idea.....until you get to Road America and find that they have declared a "spec fuel" that is 93 octane pump gas - that the track sells for $9.55/gal.

Until and unless we as a club set a ruling that the "spec" fuel must be the least-expensive fuel available at the track, or specify a local public station as the source, mandating track fuel just opens the door to gouging. Ask anyone who was running SM, SRF, or FE at the Sprints.

I believe that both pro series will be running "spec" fuel next year so fuel irregularities, whether intentional or not, shouldn't be an issue in either of the two pro series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

I believe that both pro series will be running "spec" fuel next year so fuel irregularities, whether intentional or not, shouldn't be an issue in either of the two pro series.

---

Thomas
This is a real good idea but how do you plan to police it?

Does somebody want to start another thread about fuel? Because now would be a great time for that.

Spec fuel should be left to SM, SRF, and FE.

go ahead- fire away.

Gary,

We are planning to bring the fuel to the track. That way everyone uses fuel from the same source.

If you want to start another thread on fuel for SCCA Club racing that's fine but here's the only response from the Formula 1000 Championship Series as far as the use of fuel in the Championship.

We will be running a spec fuel, Sunoco 260 GTX (98 octane) and it is the ONLY fuel that can be used in our competition. Sunoco is our exclusive supplier and it will be available at each event we run. This leaves no question as to what fuel or blend a competitors can use.

Fuel testing will be part of our tech process. Any violation in the use of other fuels, additives, etc., may result in a severe penalty and fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1000champ

If you want to start another thread on fuel for SCCA Club racing that's fine but here's the only response from the Formula 1000 Championship Series as far as the use of fuel in the Championship.

We will be running a spec fuel, Sunoco 260 GT (100 octane) and it is the ONLY fuel that can be used in our competition. Sunoco is our exclusive supplier and it will be available at each event we run. This leaves no question as to what fuel or blend a competitors can use.

Fuel testing will be part of our tech process. Any violation in the use of other fuels, additives, etc., may result in a severe penalty and fine.

---

Not to Hi-Jack the thread but someone earlier brought up a good point about spec fuels gouging. Will Sunoco offer special (discounted) pricing or anything?

I understand race fuel is not cheap anywhere, although some places are less expensive than others.

As far as our race fuel, Some of the tracks we race at will have it in the pump, others will be available with Sunoco having a truck at the events. The price of fuel may vary at each track. But, the one expense there will not be is the use of expensive additives or specialty fuels. Everyone in the Series plays to the same rules.

One of the things at make this series cost effective is that these engines don't use the amount of fuel that some of the others do.

Sunoco is providing a $250 cash award for each Pole Position winner.

Jon,

You need to include a certain amount of fuel with the entry and provide a voucher. Then its garunteed to come from the track. otherwise what to keep me from buying my own drum and using it. It also stablizes the cost to a degree and if you have support from sunoco then you as a series can negotiate a rate for the competitors at all the events or you will need to carry fuel and supply it at the track.

All of 6, Nice thought, but we're not going down that route. We're not in the fuel business.

There is nothing limiting a team from bringing fuel from outside the track, as long as its Sunoco 260 GTX. A team may want to purchase a drum of fuel from Sunoco at one track to use for testing and/or the next event. Nothing stopping them from doing so.

Sunoco 260 GTX is available at select Sunoco stations. Nothing limiting you from filling up your drum or fuel jugs there as well.

Where you purchase your Sunoco 260 GTX fuel is up to you. We have no control over what each track charges for fuel. Even Sunoco has no control over what a track charges for fuel once they buy it.

Some of our events will be at temporary street circuits that don't have it in the ground, so fuel will be brought in by Sunoco anyway.

We mandate that everyone uses Sunoco 260 GTX....period. There is nothing in the world that can prevent someone from cheating by adding additives, etc. to fuel even bought at an event, or from having jugs of fuel in their trailer from another supplier.

BUT, do so in the Formula 1000 Championship Series and the penalties will be huge.

Our fuel rules are clear and precise: Sunoco 260 GTX ONLY.

Rule of thumb.

Use what you're supposed to use and you don't have to worry.

Try to cheat and suffer the consequences.

Easy enough and can't be anymore clearer than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1000champ

Sunoco 260 GT is available at select Sunoco stations. Nothing limiting you from filling up your drum or fuel jugs there as well.

---

Sunoco 260 GT is also street-legal, so in that sense it is "pump gas" - and you can legally pour the excess into your tow vehicle at the end of the weekend.

Frankly, I would be very happy if SCCA adopted this fuel and approach across-the board for spec classes, as well.

I just thought the subject was getting away from the original thread a little bit.

You are correct, Jon. I was talking about club racing. As Coop mentioned, If you stuck to the fuel sold at the track, that should keep you out of trouble. Your choice of octane, but stick to the leaded stuff. Or you could go to the airport, buy avgas, and burn your engine up if you want.

Just leave spec fuel to the spec classes in club racing.

Brett

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1000champ

Sunoco 260 GT.

---

Seen it from $7.80 to $9.50 per gallon. Just like other Sunoco at the track prices.