Fuel test - what will pass?

[Bill Miller]

Ty,

Thanks for your response. I spent several years as a chemist in a former life, and am well aquainted w/ GCs, HPLCs, FTIRs, NMRs, etc. as well as qualitative and quantitative wet chemical tests.

I know that it's hard (and costly) to do more than some quick-and-dirty tests at the track. It would be great to get GC traces of all the fuel that people run, but I realize that's probably not practical. However, I suspect that you could get some older equipment for not too terribly much money. I imagine an HP5840 or 5890 could be had for not too much money. The problem is, keeping it in a decent environment where you'll get meaninful, repeatable results. I don't expect a lab setup at each track.

The point I was trying to make (and obviously did a bad job at), was that if you can test the legality of the fuel a Caterham runs, it should be easy to test the legality of other cars running the same fuel. There's no way that pump gas in a Caterham always has a DC of 0. As I said, you declare your fuel. If you say you're running pump gas, and your stuff gets tested the same way a Caterham's fuel gets tested, and it passes, you're good to go. If not, you get bounced. I really don't understand what the issue is w/ Prod folks not being allowed to choose, when allowances have been made for specific cars.

[x-ring]

Ah, I missed that point, again probably because I explained things poorly, and I assumed you knew more about SCCA fuel testing than was probably justified. Keep hammering me, eventually I'll leak the information you're looking for

We test fuel samples for all cars the same way, using the same electrical and chemical tests. The only difference is that the standard changes depending on what you're driving. I don't remember for sure if at one time all cars were held to one standard, and then loosened for certain cars later, but I think that's what happened, probably to allow the use of street gas in SS (or IT) or oil in two-stroke or wankel engines.

The Caterham gets a sentence in it's notes in the PCS allowing it to use fuel that meets the IT specs. What I don't understand is why the Caterham, for example, gets to burn IT spec fuel (in other words, street fuel*) and others, the LP miata for example, don't. That decision was made WAY above my pay grade.

Maybe you should ask over at the prodcar board. I'm sure you could get a rational, concise, well thought out explanation over there



* Just to stress one more time about 'street fuel'. The DC limit for IT (SM, SS, etc.) is +15.0 vs. 0.0 for the other classes. The reagent tests allow a non-black positive for the reagent A test for IT (SM, SS, etc.) and no positive for the other classes (see GCR 17.4.1 for specifics).

I *believe* this was done to allow IT (SM, SS, etc.) to run street fuel instead of race fuel.

This doesn't mean that all fuel sold at any gas station on any street corner in any state at any time of the year will meet all or even any of these specifications. In fact, I do know that some street fuel I've witnessed being tested in the last couple of years didn't meet the IT specs.

I absolutely don't know if the fuel sold at your favorite station will be compliant until I test it, and even then the next time the tanker shows up all bets are off.

I do know that I'll be happy to test a sample for you if you bring it to me at any national race where I'm working tech, and I'll even tell you the results - not just if it passed or not. I suspect that most scrutineers will do the same if they have the gear out and ready, and if they have time. Usually it's best to leave your sample and come back later.

[Bill Miller]

Ty,

Since you seem to be well versed in this stuff, can you list the most common 'performance enhancing' agents? Years ago (when I was working in a lab), I knew a guy that spent a bunch of time w/ a bomb calorimeter tweaking the fuel mixture for his race car. I'm sure that things like propylene oxide, dioxane, para-dioxane, nitro methane, short-chain ethers, etc. pack a big bang for the buck, and are pretty damn toxic. I used to work w/ a chemist that worked in the H2O2 group. I think they had stuff all the way up to 95% H2O2. Back in the 80's, he had gotten a call from someone that was w/ some F1 team, asking about possibly using H2O2 in racing fuel. Talk about scarry!!!

BTW a quick check of ebay showed a couple of old HP 5890s for <$5k, w/ the work station, and even older 5880s for a couple of hundred bucks. If you&#39;re not doing methods development, I don&#39;t see the need for the new-fangled stuff. Not to mention that a 5890 is a pretty sophisticated machine. I wrote several methods for those.

[x-ring]

I keep telling you guys I&#39;m not a fuel expert, I&#39;m the divisional administrator of tech for RMDiv -- essentially the divisional chief of tech. Yeah, I&#39;m a real important guy... NOT. It&#39;s a paperwork, politics and nursemaid job.

What I do know about fuel testing is how to operate the equipment such that I can get valid readings (only because Terri the fuel princess taught me), and what&#39;s in the GCR. You, as a former lab chemist, probably know more about &#39;real&#39; testing than I do. The last time I was in a lab was when I took Chem 132, which was, uh, a long time ago.

To save you the trouble of finding it in the GCR, here&#39;s what they have to say about specific additives in 17.4.1:

"Use of propylene oxide, ethylene oxide, paradioxane, and basic nitrogen or sulfur-bearing compounds (i.e. pyridine, aniline, pyrrole, dimethylsulfoxide, etc.) is prohibited."

The reason I usually mention paradioxane is that someone, Chemical Ira from SPDiv I think, told me once that he considers it the most toxic of the common cheater additives.

But, that&#39;s another good question I can take to the tech shed at the Runoffs.

[Bill Miller]

Sorry Ty, I missed exactly what your role was. Certainly wasn&#39;t trying to confuse the issue w/ the tech talk. Para-dioxane is some nasty, stuff, but IIRC, it was ethylene oxide that killed all those people in Bohpal, India, back in the mid-80&#39;s. Not that much of that other stuff is good for you. Most of the nitrogen-containing stuff stinks to high heaven, so it&#39;s easy to detect w/o much sophisticated equipment (actually, your nose is a pretty sophisticated device). Anybody that&#39;s ever smelled pyridine will know what I&#39;m talking about. DMSO (di-methyl sulfoxide) isn&#39;t so bad in and of itself, but it&#39;s a powerful solvent, and if you get it on your skin, it will act as a vehicle to take anything that it has in solution pretty much straight to your bloodstream.

Damn, I haven&#39;t thought about a lot of this stuff in a VERY long time. I may have to go home and dig out my Aldrich catalog.

[gprodracer]

Eric,

Thank you for the info, and answers. I knew I wasn&#39;t (completely) crazy.

Ty, I really appreciate all your help, and efforts to inform us.

To all, you guys rock! We are all learinig things pertinant to our fun.
Mark

[msogren]

I run avgas because it smells good and stores better than street gas for some reason. I dont have to guess if the octane is right either. MM

[MMiskoe]

I think they had stuff all the way up to 95% H2O2. Back in the 80&#39;s, he had gotten a call from someone that was w/ some F1 team, asking about possibly using H2O2 in racing fuel. Talk about scarry!!![/b]

Bill:

They were using this stuff for super high altitude planes weren&#39;t they? I didn&#39;t think H2O2 was particularly nasty outside of being a terrific skin remover. I know its pretty unstable so it wants to give off its extra O and become water.

I&#39;m guessing because it turns into water it doesn&#39;t work well to mix w/ fuel for an enhancer?

[mowog]

The Caterham gets a sentence in it&#39;s notes in the PCS allowing it to use fuel that meets the IT specs. What I don&#39;t understand is why the Caterham, for example, gets to burn IT spec fuel (in other words, street fuel*) and others, the LP miata for example, don&#39;t. That decision was made WAY above my pay grade.
[/b]

I just happened to come across this thread, and saw the Caterham comments. The Caterham is the ONLY car in all of the Production classes that is required to run under IT motor rules. All others can make modifications that are not allowed on this one specific car (referred to as full prep or limited prep - both much less restrictive than IT rules). For the curious, the rules require the 1998/1999 Ford Contour 2.0l motor.

[Bill Miller]

I just happened to come across this thread, and saw the Caterham comments. The Caterham is the ONLY car in all of the Production classes that is required to run under IT motor rules. All others can make modifications that are not allowed on this one specific car (referred to as full prep or limited prep - both much less restrictive than IT rules). For the curious, the rules require the 1998/1999 Ford Contour 2.0l motor.
[/b]

What mods are or are not allowed from one car to another really has no bearing on the fuel issue. If they can make the allowance for the Caterham (and the rotary cars) to run pump gas, they should be able to figure out how to let other cars run it.

They were using this stuff for super high altitude planes weren&#39;t they? I didn&#39;t think H2O2 was particularly nasty outside of being a terrific skin remover. I know its pretty unstable so it wants to give off its extra O and become water.

I&#39;m guessing because it turns into water it doesn&#39;t work well to mix w/ fuel for an enhancer?[/b]

Matt,

I know H2O2 has been used in liquid rockets, etc. In fact 90% H2O2 was the fuel for the rocket packs that we know from the movies.

And when you start getting into higher concentrations of H2O2, it gets VERY nasty. The stuff you buy at the drug store is ~3% IIRC. You start getting into 50% and higher stuff, and it is really hairy to work with. It&#39;s a very powerful oxidizer. The stuff is no joke and is not to be fooler around with.

I need to make a correction to an earlier statement I made. I had originally said that ethylene oxide is what killed the people in Bohpal, India. It was not ethylene oxide, but was in fact methyl isocyanate. Thanks to the person that reminded me.

[mowog]

What mods are or are not allowed from one car to another really has no bearing on the fuel issue. If they can make the allowance for the Caterham (and the rotary cars) to run pump gas, they should be able to figure out how to let other cars run it.[/b]

I think this is only partially true. I base this on experience racing Nationals, the Runoffs specifically (like Nationals, many think the stakes are high enough to justify $40+/gallon fuel), discussions with a number of top drivers, and many years of dyno testing.

If a motor is very limited/restricted on modifications, then high octane, and most additives that are considered illegal, won&#39;t do much, if anything, to increase power at the wheels. However quite a number of available additives that I know for a fact were used before fuel testing will produce anywhere from 3% to 18% more power on less restrictive motors. So if someone with a heavily modified motor used some of these additives while claiming they were using "street" fuel, they could quite possibly get away with it because of the wider allowances. They probably would fail the "race gas" testing.

So much of the point of the different testing is to protect us from ourselves. The additives used are almost always very toxic (if you&#39;ve ever been next to a car using some of this stuff on the grid, you wouldn&#39;t question this - as you try to breath and wipe the tears from your eyes at the 1 minute warning). If a heavily restricted motor won&#39;t benefit from the additives, then why bother? And if these same motors run an O2 sensor, street fuel is preferrable. If a motor is modified, as even "limited prep" motors are allowed to be, higher octane is required, and in most cases the valve seats also require leaded fuels. Many additives that shouldn&#39;t be unleashed on the public will produce beneficial results in these types of motors. These additives can mostly be detected with the restrictive race fuel testing, but they have too great a risk of passing the less restrictive street fuel tests.

[Bill Miller]

I think this is only partially true. I base this on experience racing Nationals, the Runoffs specifically (like Nationals, many think the stakes are high enough to justify $40+/gallon fuel), discussions with a number of top drivers, and many years of dyno testing.

If a motor is very limited/restricted on modifications, then high octane, and most additives that are considered illegal, won&#39;t do much, if anything, to increase power at the wheels. However quite a number of available additives that I know for a fact were used before fuel testing will produce anywhere from 3% to 18% more power on less restrictive motors. So if someone with a heavily modified motor used some of these additives while claiming they were using "street" fuel, they could quite possibly get away with it because of the wider allowances. They probably would fail the "race gas" testing.

So much of the point of the different testing is to protect us from ourselves. The additives used are almost always very toxic (if you&#39;ve ever been next to a car using some of this stuff on the grid, you wouldn&#39;t question this - as you try to breath and wipe the tears from your eyes at the 1 minute warning). If a heavily restricted motor won&#39;t benefit from the additives, then why bother? And if these same motors run an O2 sensor, street fuel is preferrable. If a motor is modified, as even "limited prep" motors are allowed to be, higher octane is required, and in most cases the valve seats also require leaded fuels. Many additives that shouldn&#39;t be unleashed on the public will produce beneficial results in these types of motors. These additives can mostly be detected with the restrictive race fuel testing, but they have too great a risk of passing the less restrictive street fuel tests.
[/b]

If limited mod motors don&#39;t benefit from it, why do we hear stories about the SRF crowd (not picking on them) using the $40/gallon juice? And as far as the l-p motors needing lead for the valve seats, quite of few of the l-p cars were designed to run on unleaded fuel. As I said, if they made the allowance for one car, they have the ability to test for compliance. Therefore, other cars that request to run pump gas should be allowed. And as far as your scenario about the less restrictive motors showing big gains, they don&#39;t get to run &#39;street gas&#39;, only the l-p cars get to run it.

[anrkii]

so are there any consistant grades of pump fuel, or from certain stations that will always pass?

what are the penalties for failing the fuel test?

[x-ring]

so are there any consistant grades of pump fuel, or from certain stations that will always pass?
[/b]

No, as I said earlier, with pump gas you just can&#39;t tell until you test it. Pump gas will generally pass for IT, that is DC <= 15 / no reagent positive (GCR 17.4), but I&#39;ve seen it fail before.

what are the penalties for failing the fuel test?
[/b]

Disqualification.

[anrkii]

so would it be a good idea to take several samples of fuel from different stations that I frequent to the track just to make sure?

Would I have to pay for those tests?

most premium gas from a station will fail due to additives, correct?

[Bill Miller]

so would it be a good idea to take several samples of fuel from different stations that I frequent to the track just to make sure?

Would I have to pay for those tests?

most premium gas from a station will fail due to additives, correct?
[/b]

Problem is, there&#39;s probably not that much consitency from tanker-load to tanker-load. And I have not heard of anyone having to pay to have fuel tested. I have also not heard of premium pump gas generally failing, as a rule.

[x-ring]

so would it be a good idea to take several samples of fuel from different stations that I frequent to the track just to make sure?
[/b]

As Bill said, street fuel is just too variable to be SURE it will pass everytime from the same station. Tanker load to tanker load, yes, but it is worse if you live where they change the blend seasonally. In some (maybe all?) counties in Colorado they oxygenate the fuel all the time to reduce toxic emissions. In two counties in New Mexico they only do that from November through February. Depending on what they use to oxygenate the fuel it may fail.

Would I have to pay for those tests?
[/b]

The RMDiv supps state that we&#39;ll give you two free fuel tests per race. In practice I&#39;ve never charged anyone for a test, nor have I ever heard of any other tech inspector charging for a fuel test. I don&#39;t know how much it is supposed to cost, or who I would turn the money over to if I did. They didn&#39;t give me any blank receipts either.

I&#39;ve got way bigger things to worry about than a buck or so worth of supplies used.

most premium gas from a station will fail due to additives, correct?
[/b]

On street fuel, I think it&#39;s usually the oxygentes that fail the sample, not the octane enhancers. Of course if the oxygenate is ethanol, they may be one and the same.