Printable View
Anybody got a read on the likely impact of the new fuel rule?
If I read the new Fastrack properly, the existing fuel rules are being tossed in favor of a selection of approved fuels. Is this likely to mean that IT cars will be required to run $4+/gal "race" gas instead of $~2/gal pump unleaded?
[This message has been edited by Al Seim (edited October 27, 2004).]
Hey Al, I hope it means just the opposite: if the SCCA speifies certain types of hi-octane (91 - 93) pump gas then I can mix that liberally with the 108 octane to get the overall octane number I want. Assuming, of course that mixing various approved fuels together is allowed, which of course they don't address...
I too wonder about the impact for those that use pump gas. rotarys like low octane.
dick patullo
A thought-Sunoco is the "official" supplier of fuels to SCCA, NASCAR and others. Actually, they are the worlds largest race fuel supplier. With that being said they only have a few versions of the gas available in both unleaded and leaded forms.
Our CRX runs just fine on 93 from the local dealer and when at The Glen we use the very pricey (~$6/gallon) 100. Both work the same in a bone stock engine. I'm sure that SCCA will revisit the question of using 87-91 as there are engines, including mine, that will run with that Octane number. I use a higher number in all of the cars without mishap.
The policing of fuels is a difficult task. It requires test equipment that may not be available, except at national events. THis may be part of the reasoning behind the move as well.
That's my view.
------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow
Al--It's more like $~6 for race fuel.
I am not sure what the bru ha ha here is all about; maybe they are looking to go to a spec fuel.
This will probably only impact national classes that require race fuel
Interesting.
Another "interesting" point is the decision to move away from mandatory 6 and 7 point restraint systems.
Got to get the GCR early to figure all this out.
Cheers.
My worry is actualy that when they write the rule they will not think about IT as they are focused on national classes. last time we had to hustle to get a change to allow the addition of 2 cycle oil for rotarys because it sliped through the cracks.Quote:
Originally posted by joeg:
This will probably only impact national classes that require race fuel
no malice just the RRB had not thought of it.
dick
I, also, noted the significance of this rule. I plan to write a response to the Comp Bo....uh, CRB, to get this proposal re-written such that street pump fuel is explicitly allowed "du jure".
However, if this rule is poorly worded and will, "de facto", exclude street pump fuel, I can assure you that I will personally work with someone in my region to get myself protested and work this thing up the flagpole all the way through the appeals process. The result will be one of two things: the rule will be changed appropriately or the entire club will realize via the Fastrack publication of the appeal that the club is now requiring expensive racing fuels for all classes... GA
At the runoffs this year, the SRFs were required to run one of the track-available race gas types as a "spec gas".
One competitor (and friend) had his qualifying time pulled after a random sampling picked up signs of what I happen to know was the normal pump unleaded that he had previously run. He apparently made the mistake of failing to completely flush the system - he ran it low and refilled with the new stuff.
The point here being that if the new rule is essentially a multiple choice version of the Runoffs SRF spec fuel, then even running cheap pump gas on a test day will risk a DSQ.
I think that there are some real problems out there with expensive "rocket fuel" race gases, but worry that a simple solution will triple our fuel bills - perhaps unnecessarily.
Al Seim
www.actdigital.com
If this rule changes and we have to use track gas, then protest me... The $5.00 trophy isn't worth $50.00 in gas. I will still know that I won with a uncompetitive advantage.
Raymond "Its getting more and more expensive" Blethen
Same boat here. In addition to racing, my car will still see use at autocrosses as well as some light street use during the summers. There's no way I am going to buy expensive at-the-track race gas when I know it will probably do no good as it will still be mixing with whatever I have left in the tank. I can get 93 octane at the Costco (supplied by BP) that is minutes from my house for the same amount that most other local stations sell their 87 octane. Maybe I'll just put a Costco sticker on the fuel filler door....
[This message has been edited by Racerlinn (edited October 28, 2004).]
Fuel should be a huge non-issue for IT cars. It's probably just necessary to be specific which classes need to adhere to which fuel req's and move on with life.
K
Kirk - what it 'should be' and what it 'will be' are very different things, once enshrined in the GCR.
I read the new fuel language, and am VERY LEERY about it. The spec dielectric figure for any specific fuel, to within a tenth of a point on the Hi-Des tester, is going to be a nightmare for compliance.
Sunoco 94 in NY is different from Sunoco 94 in Denver is different from Sunoco 94 in San Diego. It won't test the same. The same is true for Citgo, Texaco, Shell, and any of the millions of bargain brands that flow out of the same pipeline and get dumped out of the same tanker trucks. . Even the 'race' fuels vary from batch to batch, location to location. Torco Purple on the east coast won't necessarily read the same as Torco Purple on the west coast, due to regional stock and blending practices, from what I understand.
How accurate, and how repeatable is the Hi-Des dielectric test meter ? Sure, we can supply curves of temp vs. dielectric for every fuel on earth, but if the meter isn't predictable, and hasn't been recently calibrated (has anyone EVER sent one back for calibration ? I think not...), we have the basis for a lengthy and contentious protest. Does this thing actually read reliably and repetitively to several decimal places ? If the standard is .1, it damn well better be accurate to an order of magnitude better than that...and I don't think it is.
Everyone is concerned about the new 'hot' fuels. Are they dangerous ? A quick scan of the MSDS sheets will tell you whether they contain any of the substances that were outlawed a few years ago, and we have reagent tests for those substances if we can't decypher the MSDS. Is the concern that they make more power, but at an insane cost ($15-25+/gallon) ?
If they aren't any more dangerous than the stock pump fuel, who cares ? Yes, you can make more power with the hot fuels, but we know that you can do the same thing with race fuels vs. pump fuels, if conditions are right (compression, ign. timing, etc.). Are we simply outlawing the new fuels because they are expensive ? If that's what this is all about, then we're about to institute a TAX on all racers, by mandating more expensive fuels, simply to avoid the outrageously expensive fuels. Well...that's pretty friggin stupid, IMO.
We need to know more about the fuel rule - how it will be implemented and how it will be enforced. All we know now is a paragraph in FasTrack, which doesn't tell us much.
Rules that are impractical and unenforceable are a waste of time and will drive both racers and compliance/tech staff insane.