Fuel test port letter 8816

[Flyinglizard]

I have a letter in to rescind the test port rule for regional level cars .
MM

[Flyinglizard]

Tell us your thoughts.

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
2) Does your region have a test kit?
3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
4) Have you ever been tested?
5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.
The ARRC cars will have supps supporting the test port .
Thanks, MM

[mossaidis]

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
I have no idea
2) Does your region have a test kit?
I think so
3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
No idea
4) Have you ever been tested?
No
5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.

How about this? If history repeats itself, someone will run their IT car with some noxious, illegal race fuel just to get an advantage and in the process make the rest of us behind him/her sick. And history does repeat itself.

[Gregg]

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
I am confident that if I had protested him he would have been found non-compliant.

2) Does your region have a test kit?
Yes

3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
Yes

4) Have you ever been tested?
Yes

5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.
It allows me to quickly and accurately determine fuel load and the part it plays in vehicle weight. It allows me to quickly and easily evacuate old gas that has been sitting in my dormant race car for years.

Because we in SCCA Club Racing (both at National and Regional events) are self-policing, I do not expect a region's tech staff to initiate a fuel test. As a driver or entrant, that's my job.

Frankly, I consider the cost to be lower and benefit to be higher than any one of a number of items that are part of a car build or a race yearly budget.

[JoshS]

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
I have no idea
2) Does your region have a test kit?
I think so
3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
No idea
4) Have you ever been tested?
No
5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.

How about this? If history repeats itself, someone will run their IT car with some noxious, illegal race fuel just to get an advantage and in the process make the rest of us behind him/her sick. And history does repeat itself.

I have been tested many times, although only at National races in my T & SS cars. But our region has tested Spec Miatas (and probably others) at regional races.

[jumbojimbo]

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
Probably since most people use street fuel. Now, was I beaten by someone purposely using illegal fuel to gain an advantage, doubtful.
2) Does your region have a test kit?
Probably
3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
Probably not but I have no way to know
4) Have you ever been tested?
No
5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.
Why does your question include negatives, it is not a question it is a prefabbed answer. Why don't you ask for pros and cons?

Pros:
Threat of protest likely does cut down on use of expensive/nasty fuels
Levels the playing field as much as any other rule
Cons:
Costs money
Adds a leak point
Compliant fuel is an iffy proposition anyway

6) What's the point, we all have fuel ports now, are we all going to remove them and throw them away? Is it really a burden in a new build or just one more in the long line of whiney complaints that will turn into a CC lovefest?

7) Uh oh, long day at work, I'm easily irritated.

[Z3_GoCar]

Tell us your thoughts.

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
2) Does your region have a test kit?
3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
4) Have you ever been tested?
5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.
The ARRC cars will have supps supporting the test port .
Thanks, MM

1) No idea
2) No idea, haven't seen it used but have been ding'ed first for not having a port, and after a couple of years not having a hose to take the sample with.
3) No idea see below. It probably depends, summer blend or winter?
4) No I've never seen the fuel sample port used, only checked for if it was there, and this season if I had a way to take a sample.
5) I know it's a possible leak point, I had a spark on the starter terminal ignite a very small leak around a ball valve I was using. I managed to put it out by spaying it with water. I also pulled the fire system handle, and I found the nozzle didn't get significant amounts of foam under the intake manifold.

[MMiskoe]

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?

Don't know.

2) Does your region have a test kit?

I believe they do, I read a write up of one of our lead tech guys going to the hospital after spending time in the shed testing fuel at a national (I'm sure he's gonna be thrilled the next time there is a fuel protest).

3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?

Funny you should ask. Back a few years when all the fuel testing got really cranked up, I had some fuel tested. We were headed to an indurance race where we planned on using Power Mist and were concerned that people would look at it and think it was some Witch's Brew. So at a regional a few weeks before I brought a collection of samples. Here's what happened.

Tech guys refused to test the samples I brougth them until I threatened to get people like the SOM involved and I agreed to tell them what the samples were. I had brought 4 or 5 samples of different fuel to find out what would pass and what would not.

- The fuel from the station down the street did not pass.
- The Power Mist fuel which was said to be SCCA compliant did not pass
- The Power Mist w/ a shot of methonal in it did not pass
- The fuel from a different station that I added either Tolulene or Xylene to did pass (I forget which one I put in and how to spell them). I also don't remember what base fuel it was that I doctored. But it was simply astounding to believe that this one would pass. Either that or they scrambled which samples passed & which ones failed. The Power Mist should have passed.

All of this was a huge surprise and left me confident that if I ever were tested and it came back as a fail, I had decent ground on which to tell them their tests were flawed.

4) Have you ever been tested?

No.

5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.

I have long said that the test port is an un-necessary leak point. Having looked at what some people use for a dry break system it can be a bit scary.

Previously I asked 'what's wrong w/ a length of hose and a Mighty-Vac vacuum pump? The response was 'that has too much potential for leaks and spilled fuel'. I replied that I would much rather have a fuel spill on the tarmac outside the tech shed after the race than I do under the hood while I'm driving. I pretty much got "shut-up kid, go sit on the Group W bench" for a response. I am still curious why we can't take samples out of the F'ing tank via the filler neck.

I think the rule should be recinded and thus new builds or repairs can skip installing the port.

[titanium]

1) I am still curious why we can't take samples out of the F'ing tank via the filler neck.



"Fake" fuel tank.

[raffaelli]

Tell us your thoughts.

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
2) Does your region have a test kit?
3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
4) Have you ever been tested?
5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.
The ARRC cars will have supps supporting the test port .
Thanks, MM

1. No idea. Doubt it.
2. Dunno,
3. Dunno.
4. No.
5. Leak point never been an issue, cost is relative.

If it makes it easy to have the threat of random check, keep it.

[Matt93SE]

I am still curious why we can't take samples out of the F'ing tank via the filler neck.

Many/most/all modern cars have a screen or something in the filler necks to prevent siphoning of fuel. been there, done that. I've owned a dozen different US and Japanese cars, and all of them made after 1990 have had screens them them to prevent hoses into the tank.

Ya know, I've had a fuel sample port on my car for three years, and haven't seen a drop of fuel leak from it. I don't see what the big deal is about. If you're REALLY worried about it, stick a plug in the end of the line that you can remove in tech that will prevent any drippage if the port itself leaks.

[Chip42]

the big problem with the fuel test is not the port, it's the test. there are only a few simple tests that a tech shed can do with an affordable kit and they all suck. modern street fuel is some pretty wicked stuff, and have a ton of additives that produce odd readings in the fuel tests using reagents or based on dielectric constants.

there are approved tests using spectral analysis but your region does not have that kit. you might also notice that the GCR received a significant update on this issue in the recent past. laboratory testing is now the only real method usable in a protest. no one uses the DE tests called out int he GCR because they don't work.

does that make the port a problem? no. it's easy, it's cheap, everyone has one already, if done well they do not leak, and as noted above, they make for a convenient way to measure pump output, empty a tank, etc... so yeah, they might be defacto unnecessary, but it's not a rule that needs significant scrutiny. I know it would be easier if we didn't have so many gosh darn rules, but at the end of the day, it's why we have the best race cars and racing. this isn't driving off memebership, our anachronistic ways and confusing organization are, as much as anything we can control anyhow.

[Flyinglizard]

Some cars dont have them. A few new cars are being built. They dont need them with the current state of affairs.
I pump out the SM every pass. I am not talking about SM or SSS, just the regional only cars, (not at the ARRC race. )
Useless rule for 98% of us. IMHO.
Yeah pros and cons is what I was asking. not a big ass fight over BS. Just the facts as you see them. Thanks, MM

Jimbo. what do you do that has you in such mood? get a new job man.

[jmracer17]

Well the only way I could see this passing is if it was applied to regional only classes. With the ways classes are done now, cars can run 10 different classes and be LEGAL, possibly not competitive but legal. IT cars that are 1985 and newer are ST legal, a national class, thus needing the test port. Even if you have no intention of running the car there, it is still a possibility for the car to run national. All in all, spend the little bit extra in the build, put it in right so you have no leaks, and run it. Don't know about other regions, but here in CFR, we run for a plastic trophy. Not a big buck trophy, and plastic one. Stick the thing in and lets go run. Even if it never gets looked at, they are cheap. Whats the point of cheating? I would rather stand around and have a drink with you talking about how tight we raced, or how changing your lines or setup made you faster rather than how adding this and this to your fuel made you blow the field away. I say leave it how it is and lets race!


James

[forestdweller37]

Haven't been at this long enough to be able to share experience or have an opinion. Initial thought is that maybe mogren's letter should have specified "fuel port not required at Regional Races" vs. "regional level cars."

Do other organizations like NASA, PCA, or BMWCCA have a fuel port requirement?

[Greg Amy]

I have a letter in to rescind the test port rule for regional level cars . MM
Why? What's the big deal? These things are not expensive nor are they difficult to install...

[Flyinglizard]

Not a big deal at all.
The current test may be invalid
Many regions dont have the test kit. CFR does not( James)
The ports are uneeded at this point in time.(regional)
No reason to remove your test port.
Making new cars and old cars install one makes no sense to me, @ the regional only level.
Nat classes have them and should be tested.

[jmracer17]

Even if the region doesn't have one, and you want to go out of region to race and they do have it, well your just out of luck. Why not keep the scare in it that the region will get it, keep everyone straight up and honest about it and run? If your spending the expense to build and develop a car, why worry about a cheap part? If installed right, it wont leak. Mines in the back coming off the pump in the tank. Haven't had a problem yet.

[StephenB]

1) Have you been beat by a car using illegal fuel?
Nope but I also don't know if I have beaten a car using illegal fuel. Not sure why the question had to involve being beaten?
2) Does your region have a test kit?
Yup.
3) Do you think that the current street fuel @90/10 will pass?
Yup and I don't think that people using heavily cheated up fuel will pass. So again the question was a leading question...
4) Have you ever been tested?
Nope BUt I never gave anyone a reason to beleive that they should do so! If I thought someone else was using cheated up fuel I WOULD have taken advantage of the rule and protested them.
5) How does the rule help the regional racer, RE to additional fuel leak point, cost, etc.
Wait... you think National should have one but not Regional... I guess you just answered why I think it helps a regional racer. To me Regional is no different than national and in fact most IT classes hear in the NorthEast are as competitive if not more than most National classes.
The ARRC cars will have supps supporting the test port .
Why... If you think ARRC should then you are going against everything you beleive in! Both feet in or you will just crash harder!


Sorry to kinda sound like a dink but I don't understand the double standards. Maybe you can explain?





Why not keep the scare in it that the region will get it, keep everyone straight up and honest about it and run?
BINGO!!!!
I am sure you have been to a retail establishment. Ever noticed the EAS towers that beep if your steeling something? Those do not prevent or eliminate theft. In fact if you walked out of Walmart with a big screen TV they can't even stop you once your outside. If you have no criminal record and you leave without a plate being noticed you will most likely never get caught since no one can identify you and the police wouldn't have your picture and therefor they would have no clue who you are. BUT they do deter theft. They keep the honest or "tempted" people honest. Moral of the story... these test ports are EAS towers... when we suspect someone we can use them as proof and stand next to them with a hose and take a sample, but other than that we can't do much with them BUT they will keep the honest or "tempted" people honest. Even if the tests arent done properly each time it prevents the majority from even trying.


Stephen

[Knestis]

Stephen is describing a system wherein honesty is reinforced among the majority but thieves KNOW all of the stuff about not getting caught, so retailers lose $millions every year. If there's NO enforcement - and I have NEVER seen fuel checks at a Regional - people who want to cheat will cheat.

I'm reminded of the parents we see out in public who constantly, repeatedly threaten their kid with punishment but never dish it out. The brats' behavior never improves, we have to put up with the inconvenience of the noise.

If we aren't going to use the test ports, we shouldn't have them, but for sure simply HAVING them is no deterrent.

K

[Dave Gomberg]

Stephen is describing a system wherein honesty is reinforced among the majority but thieves KNOW all of the stuff about not getting caught, so retailers lose every year. If there's NO enforcement - and I have NEVER seen fuel checks at a Regional - people who want to cheat will cheat....
K
Just for the record, some regions do testing at regional events, but they are certainly in the vast minority. A lot of this is dependent on local management and the availability of tech personnel. It is unfortunate that more regions don't do the at-track dielectric constant testing. Of course, the laboratory testing is almost always done as the result of one competitor protesting another. A very, very small number of regions have programs to do some laboratory testing, but it is expensive and only a small number of tests are done.

Dave

[jmracer17]

Using our entry fees, doesn't part of this go to making sure the region has the correct tools? If we are required to put them in, and the tests are expensive, why don't the regions just do one select group? Top 5 in class? Top 3? I mean if we are paying for it why not use it? The region could randomly draw one class a weekend. Still keeps the scare in it. Don't do it till the end of the weekend. Why not?

[jumbojimbo]

Stephen is describing a system wherein honesty is reinforced among the majority but thieves KNOW all of the stuff about not getting caught, so retailers lose every year. If there's NO enforcement - and I have NEVER seen fuel checks at a Regional - people who want to cheat will cheat.

K

There is no "enforcement" on any of the hundred cheat items on the cars. There is no magic fuel testing program. Asking for random testing of fuel is like asking for random testing of cams or port matching or pistons.

There are fuel rules. If you suspect cheating you can protest. That's what a fuel test port allows.

[Knestis]

To clarify, I completely understand that fuel cheating is exactly like other cheating and has to be dealt with the same way. In our organization, the entrants are the "retailers" in my example.

When I say, "I've never seen a check," that means, "nobody to my knowledge has ever filed such a protest" at an event I've attended. I did *not* say that the Regions are somehow to blame for it. My point was simply that the mere presence of the port is NOT sufficient deterrent that we can count on it to prevent cheats.

K

[Dave Gomberg]

Using our entry fees, doesn't part of this go to making sure the region has the correct tools?
Many regions have the tools (DC meter, chemicals), but not enough tech workers to carry out the tests (money taken from entries does not help that problem in a volunteer organization).

If we are required to put them in, and the tests are expensive, why don't the regions just do one select group? Top 5 in class? Top 3? I mean if we are paying for it why not use it? The region could randomly draw one class a weekend. Still keeps the scare in it. Don't do it till the end of the weekend. Why not?The expensive tests are the laboratory tests ($250 each). For regions that have small fields (50 -100 cars), spreading the cost of several such tests will quickly impact the cost of a race entry. Even for regions with 200+ entries, doing a significant number of tests will have an impact on entry fees. And, tech folks are still needed to take the samples and package them for shipment to the laboratory.

Dave

[Dave Gomberg]

To clarify, I completely understand that fuel cheating is exactly like other cheating and has to be dealt with the same way. In our organization, the entrants are the "retailers" in my example.

When I say, "I've never seen a check," that means, "nobody to my knowledge has ever filed such a protest" at an event I've attended. I did *not* say that the Regions are somehow to blame for it. My point was simply that the mere presence of the port is NOT sufficient deterrent that we can count on it to prevent cheats.

K
If you had been at an event where someone had protested fuel, I'd have been shocked. The number of times that has happened since the new program has been in effect is countable on only a few fingers. The bulk of the laboratory tests that have been done have been due to a few regions with large spec classes and SCCA Enterprises for SRF and FE at selected events.

Dave

[jumbojimbo]

To clarify, I completely understand that fuel cheating is exactly like other cheating and has to be dealt with the same way. In our organization, the entrants are the "retailers" in my example.

When I say, "I've never seen a check," that means, "nobody to my knowledge has ever filed such a protest" at an event I've attended. I did *not* say that the Regions are somehow to blame for it. My point was simply that the mere presence of the port is NOT sufficient deterrent that we can count on it to prevent cheats.

K

Fair point. And you are right, fuel port is the only compliance item that requires the entrant to install a device that would assist with the protest. We aren't required to install quick release cams. On the other hand, this is a compliance items that has a potential health impact on other racers and workers. Can you really imagine SCCA taking the position that it would be ok to banish the test port and essentially give free use of noxious and dangerous chemicals? Highly doubtful (insert your own SFI rant here).

edit: by that I mean "go ahead and argue that even with the test port we don't generally test so how is this saving us from dying of cancer?" you may be right, but whether it is used or not, effective or not, we as a club can hardly go back now. Which is why the response to the letter will be "Sorry, no can do."

[Knestis]

I was responding in part to a PM that essentially scolded me for not being part of the enforcement solution. I frankly don't care very hard because I simply don't think the competitive pressures in IT have escalated to the point where entrants are "juicing." Hell - I'm too cheap to even buy plain Jane race gas. I use street car pump unleaded premium that probably isn't compliant because of ADM and the the corn lobby. :)

K

[lawtonglenn]

...I use street car pump unleaded premium...
K

TG: you were lucky to have premium ... there were a hundred and sixty
of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.

MP: Cardboard box?

TG: Aye.

MP: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in
a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the
morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down
mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home,
out Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!

GC: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in
the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to
work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad
would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we
were LUCKY!

TG: Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox
at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues.
We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four
hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we
got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.

EI: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night,
half an hour before I went to bed, (pause for laughter), eat a lump
of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill
owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home,
our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves
singing "Hallelujah."

MP: But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't
believe ya'.

ALL: Nope, nope..

[Z3_GoCar]

Excellant use of a Python skit Glenn :happy204:

[jmracer17]

Well that's why I suggested top 3 or 5. One class a weekend. I mean, in CFR they handle on of the biggest nationals of the year between the double at Sebring and the double at homested. Coming from the worker side, I have seen the large number of workers that this region gets. I know for some regions it would be higher in costs but I don't see why we still shouldn't keep the scare that your class will be the tested class. I mean if cost is so high, one race a year! The tech officials could still pick one class a weekend and fill up a sample so it seems as if they are checking but they just fill it. Takes two seconds to fill a cup? They don't have to send it away and doesn't cost any money, and takes one guy 6 seconds to fill three samples. Done. The scares in that you could be caught and everyone is on the same level.

:eclipsee_steering:

[Knestis]

Excellant use of a Python skit Glenn :happy204:

Help, HELP! I'm being repressed!

:o

[Drew M]

Pros:
Threat of protest likely does cut down on use of expensive/nasty fuels


This alone is enough reason to keep it.

I'd only remove mine if I had to. Why bother?

[jhooten]

Corner 3: Control this is turn 3
Control: go ahead 3
Corner 3: when car 20 silver passes our station the exhaust has a foul odor that is making some of the workers feel sick.
Control: Corner 3 please write up an incident report and we will have the stewards investigate, Control to all other corners please observe car 20 silver for possible exhaust odor.

The incident report was not submitted, no action was taken, Fuel test were not on the tech plan for that weekend so our hands were tied.

Other drivers/entrants are not the only ones who can help catch the cheaters. However, if you don't want to make the effort to put it on paper nothing is going to be done.