With the AMA requiring spec fuel, is anyone racing CCS planing on running that fuel? I just talked to BFR and they said they are looking into carring it if people are running it. I'm just looking to see if its worthwhile to set my bike up for it. Seems a lot more economical than VP or R-tech.
Quote from: klebs01 on January 27, 2009, 01:16:26 PM
With the AMA requiring spec fuel, is anyone racing CCS planing on running that fuel? I just talked to BFR and they said they are looking into carring it if people are running it. I'm just looking to see if its worthwhile to set my bike up for it. Seems a lot more economical than VP or R-tech.
It makes less power than pump gas. Go to Road Ranger or to Flying J and buy that gas. It will be more economical and give better performance than the AMA spec fuel.
What you need is some consistency. I've used R-Tech, Power Mist, VP, and a list of other fuels. There is power to be had, but it comes with expense. What you really want is an oxygenated, leaded fuel. Whether you do that by purchasing it or by making a combination of street and a race gas, find something that you can stick with and develop some consistency with. A 112 leaded non oxygenaged Sunoco, Turbo Blue, VP, Power Mist isn't going to be a great choice in most production motorcycles. And an unleaded 98 to 104 racing fuel just doesn't have much carry in the rev ranges that most bikes operate in.
That give you some ideas, Nathan? You riding your SV again?
Yeah, I'm riding the SV agian. Right now its with 4 and 6 getting a little work done. I'm just looking at a lot of options for fuel. It seems like there is some benefit to not running pump for tuning, but $30 a gallon for ProV1 seems excessive.
we ran the sunoco last year in moto st and it didnt make any more power then pump gas on the dyno.
it cost twice regular high test pump gas.
I ran some in my 600 during CCS weekends and think i used some towards the end of the 200 last year.bike ran fine on it. but i plan on pump gas for the ASARA team challenges compared to sticking with the sunoco for the moto gt bike
but you will be racing against people running race fuel they might have an advantage in the fuel department.
plus it was a pretty blueish green color fuel
Quote from: klebs01 on January 27, 2009, 02:11:51 PM
Yeah, I'm riding the SV agian. Right now its with 4 and 6 getting a little work done. I'm just looking at a lot of options for fuel. It seems like there is some benefit to not running pump for tuning, but $30 a gallon for ProV1 seems excessive.
Unless your running AMA also, which it looks like your on an SV so not the case,not much need in tuning your bike for their spec fuel which will give no more power then pump, just cost more.
VP U4.2 will give you good horsepower gain at about $15 a gallon as it is highly oxygenated.
I am seeing some bold unsubstantiated claims concerning fuel here.
Let me qualify this by saying: I currently do not sell any fuel at my shop, nor do I have any vested interest in any fuel company.
While I personally have not done exhaustive testing on our dyno concerning all of the different fuels currently available, We defineltly have done some testing.
How a race fuel reacts in your motorcycle really depends on the state of tune of the motor. If you have a bone stock motor, you will not see the benefits of several of the race fuels available.
So to make a blanket statement tha a fuel does or does not do something without qualifying that statement is very irresponsible.
We have tested the sunocco AMA spec fuel atour shop and found very favorable resuts on a AMA spec motor on a 600cc motorcycle. What I am saying is that the Sunocco fuel is good enough to use in a built motor. with minimal loses in power compared to a similar VP blend that we have used. But yes, The most exspensive VP fuel does indeed make more peak horsepower.
We've ran R-Tech and VP and I really like the R-Tech it burns a lot cleaner and makes just a tad more HP...the ProV.1 does.
That being said...run the R-Tech outlaw...it's cheaper than ProV.1 and has more oxygnation....it was just illegal in the AMA. It's going to work a lot better than Sunoco.
Matt, care to tell me what compression your AMA spec motor is?
We run close to 15:1 on our 650's.
The spec Sunoco fuel made 2 hp less than VP C12, no matter how we mapped it.
Quote from: BlueRidgePerformance on January 29, 2009, 04:17:19 PM
Matt, care to tell me what compression your AMA spec motor is?
We run close to 15:1 on our 650's.
The spec Sunoco fuel made 2 hp less than VP C12, no matter how we mapped it.
on a different note you guys running Moto Gt this year?
Not me. Focusing on just my racing program this year. First time since 1992. :cheers:
Quote from: Hank Reardon on January 29, 2009, 05:02:41 PM
Not me. Focusing on just my racing program this year. First time since 1992. :cheers:
thats cool running the buell still
Quote from: Garywc on January 29, 2009, 05:07:42 PM
thats cool running the buell still
Yeah, I only did two events on it last year. Full deal this year. Not sure exactly what. Need normal work first. But I have some ideas at least...
http://www.team-visionsports.com/schedule.html
QuoteThe spec Sunoco fuel made 2 hp less than VP C12, no matter how we mapped it.
And when you are running MOTO ST, your competitor is also two horsepower less.. so What is your point?
My point is: For the AMA everyone is running the same fuel. THe fuel mandated that be used appeared to be good enough. And Everyone has to use the same fuel.
If we are talking a money race and no one cares what fuel we run, I'm dumping in the rocket fuel for sure. I'm sure you will too.
My point is, it's shit fuel. Sunoco makes several fuels that are designed for use in high reving
engines. The spec fuel is not one of them.
I understand everyone has to run it, so there's not much point in bitching about it.
The fact of the matter is, if you want to get the most out of it, as you said, you have to build you engine around the fuel.
And to answer the question about us running Moto-Gt, no we are not.
Just doing WERA Endurance.
My engine builder is fielding 2 650R's in Moto-Gt.
Quote from: mdr14 on January 29, 2009, 06:51:33 PM
And when you are running MOTO ST, your competitor is also two horsepower less.. so What is your point?
Actually, that's a really bad assumption. That would be the case if everyone was running a spec. engine also, but they're not. Sunoco 110 is designed to not detonate during the inefficient combustion in iron-headed, wedge-chambered, 50 year old engine designs. To do this they've compromised the burn speed and flash points. When you then use this fuel in modern 4-valve, pentroof chambered motors... well then, your negating the work that engineers have done to improve motors. Would you have the engineers go backwards and decrease the chamber efficiency to make the fuel work better?
And NASCAR is the worst example of a succesful race series. They have a long history of double-dealing, applying rules unevenly, and harassing unpopular teams until they quit racing. They've created a race series with ridiculously high costs... and doing it with spec-everything. Now you need millions of dollars and hords of engineers to figure out how to make a turd fly.
Spec-anything is intended to bring in more money for the race promoter and more commercial exposure to the product, it has nothing to do leveling the playing field. I really doubt that either Moto-ST or the AMA did extensive, independant testing to arrive at the conclusion that Sunoco-110 is the best fuel for this application. I would imagine that Sunoco was just willing to write the biggest check to DMG? As far as I'm concerned its a form of corruption.
Quote from: 123user on January 30, 2009, 09:24:46 AMThey've created a race series with ridiculously high costs... and doing it with spec-everything. Now you need millions of dollars and hords of engineers to figure out how to make a turd fly.
Spec-anything is intended to bring in more money for the race promoter and more commercial exposure to the product, it has nothing to do leveling the playing field. I really doubt that either Moto-ST or the AMA did extensive, independant testing to arrive at the conclusion that Sunoco-110 is the best fuel for this application. I would imagine that Sunoco was just willing to write the biggest check to DMG? As far as I'm concerned its a form of corruption.
Well, first, they aren't using Sunoco 110, so you'll want to recheck what they are running. Indy car does not use a very good fuel either. There are much better fuels out there, but they recognized years ago that cost was a factor. Additionally, increased power and speed was a problem to the courses they ran too.
Next, why do testing? Did they test tires to decide that Dunlop was the best? Yes, it does come down to who can pay for and the supply the product for the series. But everyone can buy it. It's still cheaper than not being able to get the AA+++ Dunlops of not being able to afford racing fuels that do give actual HP improvements at the cost of an extra $25 to $100 per gallon. There are plenty of people that can give reasonable data and understanding of what the Sunoco fuel will do in an engine. It's still a gasoline.
NASCAR cost a lot. Yes, that's because they employ a lot of people to do work all the time. In Indy car, there may be a couple of PR people that are paid to work for the whole team. In NASCAR each drive might have two to three PR people. The cost is related to the competitiveness of the program. You need lots of engineers, mechanics, pit people, etc. because EVERYTHING counts in the end. And there have been sponsors that were willing to pay for it. It doesn't mean that every team will be successful, just as every business is not successful.
Don't forget that the cost of the checks from Sunoco, Dunlop, Sharkskinz, Yoyodyne, Woodcraft, and all those other "spec" sponsors all contribute to paying a guy that finishes below 25th $3k in Daytona Superbike. Mladin's purse money was only a little above that in AMA Superbike wins.
OK, so the real options are Pump, U4.2 at ~$15/gal, or Outlaw at ~$20/gal? Are there any options that would be better than pump but not as expensive?
Being a sponsor, and requiring certain part usage are two entirely different things. Sponsorship of racing is about spotlighting the best you have to offer the consumer. Remember the "win on Sunday, sell on Monday"? When you require spec fuel, tires, helmets, etc, then you're effectively "fixing" a sponsors appearance in the race results. If you think the primary philosophy behind racing should be about dude's in suits making money... bingo! If you believe that racing is about competition, R&D, bringing a better product to the consumer... prepare to be dissapointed. If Dunlop wants to sign a deal with competitor, that's great. Dunlop will work to make that competitor's tire the best. If everybody is buying the Dunlops, what's the incentive to improve? And frankly, if the guy finishing 25th started finishing 10th and above... the tire companies would start giving them "ringers".
The total suck of the deal is this: If you're a privateer and cannot afford to change every component brand on you're bike/car/boat every year then you're unable to compete. So even if you have a solid racing platform, year to year, but you can't afford to switch to Showa and Hyperpro and Shoei and Marvic and etc from Kayaba and Ohlins and Arai and Marchesini and etc, then you can't afford to race.
For instance, I personally think that its great that Yoyodyne is sponsoring CCS. But if I had just purchased a set of Blackstone-Tech wheels for my bike that has two years of contingency, I would be mad as hell if I was forced to switch to Marvic just because Yoyodyne is a Marvic retailer.
I'm not pretending that racing is some sort of pure-science and sponsorship is totally black and white. But it's certainly taking the "run what yah brung" out of racing. If NASCAR has illustrated anything, its about how the monopoly of sponsorship only drives costs up... well that and hillbilly's are dumb, but we already knew that.
But this kinda got off topic. I know that my Sunoco 110 in my bike resulted in 300 less rpm through the Tri-Oval regardless of fuel mapping vs. VP-U4. Then, when I asked for the data sheet on it from the vendor at Daytona he said, "what do you want that for?" Like his attitude was gas-is-gas! Is that the mentality of Sunoco?
Quote from: klebs01 on January 30, 2009, 10:25:08 AM
OK, so the real options are Pump, U4.2 at ~$15/gal, or Outlaw at ~$20/gal? Are there any options that would be better than pump but not as expensive?
How much is whiskey per gallon?
They could have easily have Sunoco bring this to the track.
http://www.sunocoinc.com/Site/Consumer/RaceFuels/UnleadedFuels/Sunoco+MO2X+Unleaded.htm
Quote from: Jason748 on January 30, 2009, 10:56:03 AM
How much is whiskey per gallon?
On a dirt bike you only need about 2 ounces of whiskey to make you faster, anything more and you get slower. Never tried it on the track though!
Quote from: BlueRidgePerformance on January 30, 2009, 11:06:32 AM
They could have easily have Sunoco bring this to the track.
http://www.sunocoinc.com/Site/Consumer/RaceFuels/UnleadedFuels/Sunoco+MO2X+Unleaded.htm
Would work better if it were leaded.
There is a MO2X leaded version, also. I think I called about that a couple months ago and got a crazy difference in price. Like someone said 8/gal and some one else about 18/gal. If its toward the top end I might as well just use VP. Seems like there is a lot more support around for it, and a lot more experience.
Quote from: klebs01 on January 30, 2009, 10:25:08 AM
OK, so the real options are Pump, U4.2 at ~$15/gal, or Outlaw at ~$20/gal? Are there any options that would be better than pump but not as expensive?
I was using a prototype fuel from Power Mist last year that was only about $9 a gallon. Was leaded and oxygenated. Kind of caught me off guard that it was better than some of the really good and expensive things I have used in the past.
Pump gas is oxygenated and unleaded. The advantage is fast flame speed and inexpensive. Nathan, what I do as an old standby is to mix on gallon of a leaded 110 or 112 racing fuel with two to three gallons of pump gas. The mixture will retain a lot of the speed, but the lead adds more complete combustion to the process vs what one gets from an unleaded. And don't forget that the fuels around here are oxygenated. You'll get a little carry out of that. On a carbureted bike, doing this will lower the overall specific gravity of the fuel a little bit which would normally make it a little rich, but the lead in the fuel will then get the air fuel mix to burn more completely. Ends up evening out very well.
i do the same mix of about 25% 110 in pump gas.
Quote from: Hank Reardon on January 30, 2009, 05:15:14 PM
Would work better if it were leaded.
Yes, but they and many other orgs are switching to unleaded fuels.
A comment was made above about Indy car fuels, they now use ethanol.
Quote from: BlueRidgePerformance on January 31, 2009, 06:57:36 AM
Yes, but they and many other orgs are switching to unleaded fuels.
A comment was made above about Indy car fuels, they now use ethanol.
Yeah, FIM switched to unleaded because of environmental pressure. And reduced power to even the field.
Yes, Indy went to ethanol, because of environmental concerns. But, similarly, the spec ethanol isn't a high power fuel either. It's something that everyone can use, and it evens the cost and playing field.