Everyone please help...NEW FUEL RULES!

[Super Dave]

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

[Super Dave]

The rules commitee will meet on November 15th.

You may email your comments to Kevin Elliott at...
KevinElliott@ClearChannel.com

[Super Dave]

Please check it out.  This is important.

[Mark Bernard]

Please check it out.  This is important.

Dave...Would CAM-2 be considered Illigal?

[FullMoonRacing]

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. <snip>
[/url]

My poor old Dad has alzheimers and wouldn't have created rules such as these!!

[smoke]

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?

[Zac]

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.

[EM JAY]

 Hey Dave, sent my letter today.  Also sent one out on the combining of the Lt. Wt. and Supersingles classes!  

[Super Dave]

Dave...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.

[Super Dave]

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?

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.

[Super Dave]

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)

Exactly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Woofentino Pugrossi]

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.