The current rules for FUSA and CCS racing are so restrictive that pump gas is not allowed.
Additionally, unleaded racing fuels would not pass the testing requirements along with any leaded oxygenated racing fuel. Only a select few fuels would potentially pass the parameters that are allowed.
I have written a proposal for a fuel rule change. I hope that all competitors will go a special page on my web site and down load the proposal that I have written.
If you agree, please take the time to sign it and get it to Kevin Elliott at CCS as soon as possible.
Here's the link...
http://www.team-visionsports.com/pages/953777/index.htm
The rules commitee will meet on November 15th.
You may email your comments to Kevin Elliott at...
KevinElliott@ClearChannel.com
Please check it out. This is important.
QuotePlease check it out. This is important.
Dave...Would CAM-2 be considered Illigal?
QuoteThe current rules for FUSA and CCS racing are so restrictive that pump gas is not allowed.
Additionally, unleaded racing fuels would not pass the testing requirements along with any leaded oxygenated racing fuel. Only a select few fuels would potentially pass the parameters that are allowed. <snip>
[/url]
My poor old Dad has alzheimers and wouldn't have created rules such as these!!
Dave
Don't get me wrong I see your view point and understand why u feel a change needs to be made.
I have a few questions.
If I undersatnd correctrly these are the current fule rules on the books? But they are not being enfforced by anyone? if that is correct. So what good will it do to change a rule that CCS/FUSA is not paying any attention too?
The 6% O2 and no nitrogen bearing components makes sense, because these are what affect the performance of fuels (and I assume the specific gravity requirement would keep out most non-petroleum fuels like methanol as well as the non-gasoline petroleum fractions)
My concern comes with testing and enforcement. With the previous (flawed) rule, all you should need to test the fuel legality is a hydrometer and the HDE meter, not that I know if Tech Inspection actually had this equipment. With the new rule, I think the only way to test the fuel would be using a contracted lab. Fuel analysis protests require a deposit and the actual testing fee. I don't know what kind of testing would be required to determine the oxygen and nitrogen content of a complex hydrocarbon such as race gas (maybe my wife will chime in), but I guess it wouldn't be cheap. If it turns out that the test would be prohibitively expensive, noone would want to risk the cost of the protest, and the dishonest people would still run their nitromethane-hydrazine-jolt cola homebrew.
Dave, I see your proposed rule as a step in the right direction. I would support it because I don't want to be in conflict with the rules because I run C-12 (and even 20 extra horsepower wouldn't help me anyway ::). I am just wondering how enforcable it is.
-z.
Hey Dave, sent my letter today. Also sent one out on the combining of the Lt. Wt. and Supersingles classes!
QuoteDave...Would CAM-2 be considered Illigal?
CAM2 is a trade name...like Hershey's...
Their unleadeds would be way off the chart at 6.0 and 8.0.
Standard, which I think might be -0.3 could be ok. But depending upon batch variation and again, that number can swing +/-0.4. So, that could put you out or in. If you got the stuff from a container that had a bit of water in it, it would make the dielectric number go WAAAY polar probably ending up somewhere around 5.0 depending upon how much water got in.
All of the other CAM2/Sunoco fuels are illegal under the dielectric rules set by CCS/FUSA.
QuoteIf I undersatnd correctrly these are the current fule rules on the books? But they are not being enfforced by anyone? if that is correct. So what good will it do to change a rule that CCS/FUSA is not paying any attention too?
Well, if I were to belly up to the bar and protest pretty much anyone, I could move my self up as many positions that I want. If the rule is not being enforced because its all messed up, then it should be changed.
I lobbied for a change in the rules in 1999 and they were changed in 2000. Then, in 2001, the rules were changed again to the current form. I didn't even notice until the end of 2001 myself. I believe that I wrote a rule proposal then, but I didn't push it among everyone.
I understand the rule even more now, and it just doesn't make sense that you can't use pump gas, for one.
There is really no way to make a rule that eliminates a fuel that might potentially offer a performance enhancement without eliminating the ability of a financially burdened racers ablility to use pump gas as a fuel.
If I can make the rule right, then we're in a better postion for good rules.
QuoteThe 6% O2 and no nitrogen bearing components makes sense, because these are what affect the performance of fuels (and I assume the specific gravity requirement would keep out most non-petroleum fuels like methanol as well as the non-gasoline petroleum fractions)
Exactly.
QuoteMy concern comes with testing and enforcement. With the previous (flawed) rule, all you should need to test the fuel legality is a hydrometer and the HDE meter, not that I know if Tech Inspection actually had this equipment. With the new rule, I think the only way to test the fuel would be using a contracted lab. Fuel analysis protests require a deposit and the actual testing fee. I don't know what kind of testing would be required to determine the oxygen and nitrogen content of a complex hydrocarbon such as race gas (maybe my wife will chime in), but I guess it wouldn't be cheap. If it turns out that the test would be prohibitively expensive, noone would want to risk the cost of the protest, and the dishonest people would still run their nitromethane-hydrazine-jolt cola homebrew.
Still hard to enforce anything. I don't think CCS has the either the HDE meter that they specify, or the one that replaces it.
There are some reagent tests that could be performed on site that could indicate nitrogen bearing additives such as Nitromethan, Propylene Oxyide, etc.
The protest fee for fuel is $200. Yeah, it basically would need to be shipped out to be done correctly.
As for high amounts of oxygen? I've used racing fuel with 12% oxygen, and it was hard to work with. Was almost like methanol in that we probably needed a bigger inlet needle and seat into the carb body as that was acting as the main jet under load. 6% would allow some of the higher oxygenated racing fuels out there to be used.
Gasoline in many areas might have as much as 1.7 to 3.0% oxygen in it.
QuoteDave, I see your proposed rule as a step in the right direction. I would support it because I don't want to be in conflict with the rules because I run C-12 (and even 20 extra horsepower wouldn't help me anyway ::). I am just wondering how enforcable it is.
-z.
C12 -0.5 I'm a Power Mist guy myself, but I recognize the C12 is a good fuel for certain applications. Cost is going to be reasonable, performance would be good, etc...but, under the current rules...illegal.
Now add some two-stroke oil to it and it could be way out of the ball park.
As for enforceability, we really need to be able to legally run what we have ran and what we know is regularly available. Might not be any more fuel checks going on next year compared to last year, but I'd prefer that the rules reflect some reasonable sense of reality and cost.
If gasoline isnt allowed? Can we use JP-4 jet fuel? ;D
I use premium pump gas (93 oct usually) because I CANT AFFORD $5+/gal for fricken race gas. Geesh, dont they THINK about it before they write some of these rules. IF they start telling us we cant use pump gas, I bet there will be even SMALLER grids as probably a bunch of racers (me included) will basically say f-it and go find other cheaper hobbies like off shore boat racing ;D.
why not just drop the fuel rules altogether.
Since nobody is interested in protesting or enforcing, let any fuel be legal. If somebody wants to spend crazy amounts of money on hard to tune types of fuel, let em.
QuoteIf gasoline isnt allowed? Can we use JP-4 jet fuel? ;D
I use premium pump gas (93 oct usually) because I CANT AFFORD $5+/gal for fricken race gas. Geesh, dont they THINK about it before they write some of these rules.
I think the hydrocarbon chain would be longer in JP4 and diesel and it wouldn't meet the specific gravity requirement.
I think someone was trying to regulate out the expensive racing fuels, which there are in existance and they do make a good power increase. And they are available.
However, I don't know if you can make a rule that blanket eliminates them consistently without regulating out pump gas. And pump gas is a regularly used fuel by production based road racers.
Someone really just took the rules from NHRA or SCCA and put them in place here. Unfortunately, most of the people in the fuel selling business don't seem to understand the ramifications of the rule and claim certain fuels ARE legal when it is clear, if you had any knowledge of the rules, that the rules are very restrictive and eliminate most fuels period.
Quotewhy not just drop the fuel rules altogether.
Since nobody is interested in protesting or enforcing, let any fuel be legal. If somebody wants to spend crazy amounts of money on hard to tune types of fuel, let em.
Well, yeah, there is some merit to that.
But would you want someone running methanol?
I've got a nitromethane carrying product that does work well in gasoline. I agree that it probably doesn't need to be used.
This really should be kept simple. You can use gasoline, and you should be able to buy a gasoline racing fuel, leaded or unleaded, as produced my a manufacturer, or even put together by yourself through a mix of fuels or even products. Allow a person to keep it simple, but follow some reasonable parameters.
Can someone please tell me the shelf life of nitromethane before I show John this thread?
I think it depends upon too many variables. Container, if it was sealed properly, if the air was removed and nitrogen put in it's place, etc. etc.
And I haven't seen great gains with Nitro methane in production bikes...really it doesn't mix well with gasoline at all. Then you have to deal with the fact that the MON of nitro methane is 60. That's pretty low. You mix that with a lower octane fuel and it can preignite. In the NASCAR Busch series a few years ago when the rules were pretty open, guys were allowed to run compressions at 16:1 and they were using Power Mist TO137 (5% oxygen and 120+ MON...apparently on another scale the octane was rated at 147...). Next they started adding one gallon of a Power Mist product called Nitro Plus, it does have nitromethane in it and it does mix well with gas, to four gallons of TO137. Guess it was worth 70+ HP on those engines. But the fuel they were using worked with the combination because of its quick, cool flame burn and high octane. They were running the RPM's over 8k.
QuoteBut would you want someone running methanol?
I don't know. Why WOULDN'T I? Why would I care?
QuoteI've got a nitromethane carrying product that does work well in gasoline. I agree that it probably doesn't need to be used.
Why not?
I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just trying to understand what the real impact would be of having the Actual fuel rule be the same as the current De Facto fuel rule - i.e. no fuel rule.
Having a rule in the book that is not enforced is BAD. It is unfair to all the competitors who follow the rules. Having a rule that is not enforceable in some reasonably practical way is almost equally as bad. If I know that using Special 5 is illegal, I'm not going to use it. And if see some guy pouring it out of a Nutec can into his bike, I shouldn't have to fork out $200 and wait a month to protest him and get the results. Better to just make it legal and put us all on equal footing. 'Cause the net effect of not doing that will be that the cheaters will cheat and get away with it. Which sucks! And a moral victory ain't a patch on a First place plaque won fair and square.
- Stu
Quote'Cause the net effect of not doing that will be that the cheaters will cheat and get away with it. Which sucks! And a moral victory ain't a patch on a First place plaque won fair and square.
- Stu
I thought every cheats ? ;D
seriously, we would never be able to stop cheaters. As a veteran puts it to me "everyone cheats, if you don't, you are behind already"
QuoteI don't know. Why WOULDN'T I? Why would I care?
Methanol?
First, gasoline has about 19000 BTU's where as methanol has about 9000 BTU's for the same unit. So, you've got to run a lot of methanol to even make it work to make the same HP. You're going to more than double your jet size and you'll probably have to completely rework the carb inlets, etc.
Really, really problematic with water. It just pulls it out of the atmosphere. Then it causes everything to corrode with the water in it.
Good methanol is hard to find. You can find used commercial stuff, but it is of varing degrees. Fair stuff will be a little cheaper than race gas, but good stuff will cost you more.
Then there is the burning problem. If it catches fire, you can't see the flames.
With a seven gallon tank, you might have a problem finishing a GT race.
Otherwise, I'm not sure why methanol is not allowed, but it isn't.
QuoteWhy not?
I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just trying to understand what the real impact would be of having the Actual fuel rule be the same as the current De Facto fuel rule - i.e. no fuel rule.
Why no nitromethane? And other nitrogen bearing additives?
Well, it does have the BTU's, but it is very volitile. Very, very volitile. Very heavy too, so you can practically dectect it by just doing a specific gravity test. Other reagent tests will show it immediately.
Those nitrogen bearing additives are just not gasoline additives. I think at some point, you just draw the line.
QuoteI thought every cheats ? ;D
seriously, we would never be able to stop cheaters. As a veteran puts it to me "everyone cheats, if you don't, you are behind already"
Funny comment, but it is representative of the poor rules enforcement.
If everyone cheats, then everyone should be in front of me.
I think a lot of guys know of others that cheat, and that's probably another reason why people leave this sport...the impression of lots of cheating going on and nothing being done.
Dave
I will send the rule change info in. I was talking to a friend and racer last night and I was telling him about this thread and the rules.. He said " so what everyone uses VP and they have a stake in racing and no one in going to care. "
That just made me think about my comment I made the other day
QuoteI thought every cheats ? ;D
That is very disappointing. *I* do not knowingly cheat. Not even a little bit. I did run VP and Nutec this past season, but that was because I was told by the VP and Nutec reps that the fuel I was using was legal for Supersport. I would not have used it otherwise.
Anyway, it is true that some people will cheat, no matter what you do. The point is to have rules that make it so you don't need to cheat to be competitive, OR make it easy to catch the cheaters.
If you completely eliminate the fuel rule, then you've just cut out a whole bunch of cheating. Reasons NOT to do just that? Safety and cost. If a particular fuel is unreasonably dangerous (like say methanol, because you can't see it burning), it should be illegal to use. If a particular fuel is unreasonably expensive, then it should be banned IF there is a practical and expedient way to enforce the ban (which there doesn't seem to be).
- Stu
QuoteThen there is the burning problem. If it catches fire, you can't see the flames.
I spoke with Kevin Elliot earlier in the year about the fuel rule.
If I remember correctly, he stated the fuel rule is in place for safety more than anything else.
The corner working crews are not equipped to deal with "invisible" fires.
QuoteI spoke with Kevin Elliot earlier in the year about the fuel rule.
If I remember correctly, he stated the fuel rule is in place for safety more than anything else.
The corner working crews are not equipped to deal with "invisible" fires.
Well, yeah, invisible fires, yes. That has to do with methanol.
You also said that you talked to someone from CCS about whether one of the MR fuels was legal in CCS, and you were told yes.
But that shows that there is NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THE RULES ACTUALLY SAY. Or that there is no care, or that there is no knowledge.
I'm actually disappointed that I'm the only one that seems to understand this. I'm a racer, and I learned a lot about fuel over many years. Seems like there should be some people distributing stuff that should know.
It's a poor reflection on the whole motorcycle racing industry, period.
QuoteThe corner working crews are not equipped to deal with "invisible" fires.
Surely it would be noticeable once one of the cornerworkers caught on fire :o
And to the quote "everybody cheats".
Well, I suppose small rule infractions are common i.e., swapping wheels, different brakes on an older bike, etc. However, those who come out with 120+HP 600's in a supersport race are a different story.
Bottom line, if you need to cheat to beat me, that's sad...
QuoteAnd to the quote "everybody cheats".
Well, I suppose small rule infractions are common i.e., swapping wheels, different brakes on an older bike, etc. However, those who come out with 120+HP 600's in a supersport race are a different story.
Bottom line, if you need to cheat to beat me, that's sad...
I agree, Jeff. Some things are in the interest of saving money.
But why should a CBR600F3 make 114HP and appear to be in "supersport" trim? If the power makes that much difference, then the rider sucks. Is it more prevolent in the amateur classes?
And doesn't it just erode the whole racing thing anyway? It's still about skill right?
Here's one...
Ok, some guys don't like NASCAR, and that's fine. But...does anyone think that there is one team that has a large HP advantage over another team? We may bag on them because our grandma's that wear coke bottle glasses can drive a Ford Taurus, so any race car driver "can't be that good"...LOL. But at least there is some equality there. If there is any cheating, it's on the very fine gray lines of the rules, which is to be expected. But blatant cheating...750 or bigger motors in smaller chassis. What a joke.
Nascar -- don't they require a spec Union 76 fuel?
NASCAR Winston Cup, yes, they have a spec fuel. It is supplied to each team, but the entry fee for a Winston Cup race is in the tens of thousands of dollars also.
It is a leaded fuel usually spiked with a bit of methanol to keep those cars running cool for five hundred miles.
Other parts of the NASCAR series have different rules.
A team purchased Power Mist TO137 (120MON, 5% oxygen) from me for a NASCAR Busch race...they finished second. It fell into their rules.
Methanol doesn't burn clear if you have enough Nitro in it. And the type of nitro you want for mixing with gasoline is nitro-propane and not nitro-methane. Nitro-methane will only mix correctly with methanol. Finding race quality methanol is easy, head out to the local dirt oval track and ask the sprint car/midgets (cars not people) where they buy theres. The best fuel you can get for a two stroke is found at Hobby shops world wide. I prefer the 20% nitro but sometime will run the 30% and it's already got the oil mixed in it. ;D
Do they know where to get good stuff? Well, this is moot...and nitro in any form is pretty much prohibited...except in like Top Fuel stuff.
Most "good" methanol that is sold to racers is still only about 92% methanol. The rest is contaminants...water, etc. The water is why it's so terrible to components.
Medical grade methanol is available too. Still, it has contaiminants.
Guys burn down engines getting cheaper methanol.
The very most pure racing methanol is available from Power Mist... 99.95% methanol. Since more of the product IS methanol, it makes more power, and it doesn't destroy the engine. Better consistency. Summit Racing has used it for quite a long time. That's one of the reasons they stay on top.
But you're gonna drop probably $5 a gallon. You can buy stuff for $2 a gallon, but when you've got a $40,000 motor... Actually, some guys never learn.
I will go ahead and ask my friends next time I see them where they get there methanolsince I remember seeing 99.5% on the drum it was in. I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't be using substandard stuff in a $25k motor. You sure are proud of your PowerMist....
The results speak for themselves.
Oldest racing fuel company in the world.
Still family owned.
They don't make gas for gas stations, so they always struggle to get the best raw materials, and they don't have something else to subsidise what they do.
That's a big up hill battle for anyone. They are the real American underdog. In Busch racing, the stakes are pretty high. Often, the guys winning and setting lap records...they may be sponsored by another fuel company with cash...but there is Power Mist in the fuel cell but different stickers on the car.
OK being new I am going directly to rule book to check all this out but are you guys serious that Pump Gas is illegal.
Marc
Yes. Pump gas fits the specific gravity of gas, obviously.
However, the dielectric parameters on the High Desert Engineering fuel analyzer that CCS is using will not allow pump gas to pass. The parameters are +/-0.4. Pump gas will probably be +1.3 to +3.5.
That would make it illegal for racing in FUSA and CCS racing. In fact, there is very little hope in a race track's fuel passing the test. These parameters are very tight.
If you go to the web page...
http://www.team-visionsports.com/pages/953777/index.htm
...download the my Word document. That should help you understand some of it.