At competitor request, for the 2010 and 2011 June Sprints, Chicago Region SCCA provided a spec fuel, first for SRF, and then also for FE and SM. The intent was to help assure a more level playing field to improve competition. Instead, and particularly in 2011, while the concept was embraced by most competitors, the costs and the logistics of the program were the focus of well-placed criticisms.

In November 2011, the Region surveyed FE, SM, and SRF competitors who participated in the 2010 and 2011 June Sprints to learn their preferences regarding spec fuel and acceptable price points.

While FE competitors rejected spec fuel, SM and SRF competitors favored spec fuel if the cost were kept comparable to the markup at the 2011 Runoffs. As a result of competitor response, the Region attempted to source 93 octane fuel with ethanol for the 2012 June Sprints.

Chicago Region and Road America studied the cost structure collaboratively, based on the following assumptions:
1. Neither would profit from the sale of the spec fuel.
2. The final price would combine fixed costs and the vendor’s price for the fuel itself.
3. The final target would approximate last year’s Runoffs price.
4. The logistics of the program would meet competitor needs.

The plan was to spread the significant fixed costs for transportation (including truck and tanker), fire suppression, staffing, and insurance directly across the per gallon fuel price, although consideration was also given to spreading the costs indirectly across all competitors in the affected classes through a surcharge above the entry fee. That could mitigate some, but not all, of the risk, but it also effectively penalizes the entire population. It is worth noting that Runoffs fixed costs are spread over a larger number of competitors with a higher total consumption.

The second component of the final price would combine the current market price, which is expected to rise between now and June, along with the vendor’s markup.

In the end, we find ourselves unable to offer spec fuel at a price point that we feel would both be in line with competitor expectations and which would represent for them a reasonable return value because of the unavoidable and uncontrollable elements associated with providing spec fuel for these two classes, which also included assuring that the fuel would be reliably available when needed by competitors.

Instead, the Region is committed to a robust, systematic, and visible fuel testing plan, in accordance with the GCR throughout the fields for all classes during the June Sprints. Competitors in all classes are free to obtain GCR compliant fuel from the vendor of their choice.

Chicago Region thanks Road America for their efforts during this analysis and candor in opening the books to provide complete transparency in the fuel process, which, when combined with their willingness to forego any rightful profit in providing spec fuel had that been the direction the Region chose, again demonstrates that Road America truly supports our racing program and our competitors.

We look forward to seeing everyone at the WeatherTech Chicago Region SCCA June Sprints on June 15 – 17, 2012 at Road America. Please direct any questions to either of us. Thank you.
Yours, for the Sport,

Ed Locke, Regional Executive
Chicago Region SCCA
regionalexec (at) scca-chicago.com

JoAnne Jensen, Chief Steward
2012 June Sprints
joannejensen (at) cox.net

Sad, but guess I can understand their thinking. Perhaps we could compromise and suggest something higher than what we paid at the runoffs or at a level that makes it worthwhile for the track. Hope this doesn't mean that $35 hot fuel is coming back. We won't be using the crap and we hope that they have a way of identifying it. You won't need a hound to sniff it out! That should be all it takes and those failing should be sent home! I know there is much more to it than that, but it shouldn't be. Pat

I understand the reasoning and kudos to the board for explaining their point of view and decision making process. That being said, if there is a "hot fuel" that satisfies the rules, I won't be attending this year. I guess I'll wait until closer to the event to make a final decision (based on whether or not such a fuel exists), but to my knowledge, the fuel companies have consistently been able to come up with a chemistry that makes a notable difference in power/throttle response and has cost some 10x what a gallon of pump 93 costs. I understand that said fuel would be within the rules and anyone who runs it would be legal, and I accept that fact and will not fault anyone who runs it to be optimally competitive (it will be table stakes).
I won't run it and won't attend if it exists.

Just my .02. Again, I very much appreciate the post and the reasoning behind the decision.
Thank you.

Denny - I heard there are 25 gallons of the hot fuel behind the used tire stack where you get your tires. A twofer for you!!

I tried to be very professional with my post above but I am sorely disappointed by this ruling. I would pay $15 per gallon for a spec fuel (or pretty much whatever it would cost) but I won't attend when the playing field is made unlevel by fuel that I can neither test with (cost) nor transport (trailer) and is not available to me at the track (trust me, I tried a couple of years back when I got there and found out that others were using it!). It is what it is... much to my disappointment, the Sprints won't be on my list this year it looks like. I hope that others who feel the same (if there are any) post their feelings as well.
Again - kudos to the powers that be for letting us know the ruling early and the reasoning behind it.

I can understand the desire to keep costs and profit margin confidential on the part of the track, but I'm curious how much it would have cost to have spec fuel? And why does it have to be trucked in? Does RA not already have fuel for sale? That couldn't be declared the spec fuel? I don't mean to second guess things after the fact, and I probably couldn't make it to the sprints this year if the gas were free, but I doubt I'm not the only one wondering...

I would agree with Denny about paying a significant amount for track fuel and believe it is well worth the cost. It seems that not all of us view the importance of having a level playing field as a goal.

I have asked this question before, but know one stepped up to give me an answer. Is hot fuel still an issue in other divisions? It's not a problem here, where we host the June Sprints. I have always liked the idea of having large fields from all over the country, but it's too bad what has evolved over the years. I will admit that we fell for it several years ago and in fact had a few gallons left and it was not easy to convince our local recycle facility to take it. This stuff is bad news.

Since then we decided not to use it, knowing perhaps that our chance of winning were diminished. I will say this though that if we do decide to go this year, you will see a POG graphic on our car and if by chance this is our year, it will be a win that would be very satisfying. Denny, I understand your reasoning for not participating under those circumstances. I wouldn't spend the money to make a long tow to an event knowing you might be down as much a 3HP and that by itself is unfortunate.

The June Sprints have always been something special to us. The slogan it's not just a race tells it all. Jim, I know you have worked very hard to push for spec fuel and we appreciate very much your effort. Pat

Finally, I have to admit I am not up on the latest fuel tests. Is there any way that the top 5 finishers can be challenged by requiring their samples to be sent in for analysis and if so what would be the cost? If it was at all reasonable I would be willing to help pay for it. It would be real easy to sniff out the drivers. Perhaps this might even make some rethink their decision to use it.

I do believe that most if not all drivers would prefer not to have to deal with this. The cost of racing these days has led to much smaller SRF fields and we really don't need this distraction. I believe that you have two choices for track fuel at RA. Both of them are high octane which is not a good fit for our cars.

goolsbey wrote:...
Finally, I have to admit I am not up on the latest fuel tests. Is there any way that the top 5 finishers can be challenged by requiring their samples to be sent in for analysis and if so what would be the cost? If it was at all reasonable I would be willing to help pay for it. It would be real easy to sniff out the drivers. Perhaps this might even make some rethink their decision to use it....

I can't address any of the issues that the Chicago Region has found in their attempt to provide a spec fuel, but I can address this one. Any competitor can protest another competitor's fuel and have it subjected to the lab tests specified in the GCR and the Fuel Manual. The cost is $250/test, plus the protest fee ($50). You would have to protest specific competitor(s) - there is no provision for protesting the top five finishers. If the fuel passes the tests, the protestor forfeits the $250. If the fuel fails the test, the protestor's money is refunded (the protested party would lose the $250 required from him - the lab has to be paid by someone).

You might be able to talk the Chief Steward into accepting the money from a fund provided by the competitors to do a Chief Steward's Action to have the top three to five finishers' fuel tested. Clearly, that would have to be worked out in advance.

Dave

Dave thanks! Now let's have someone address my 1st question. Is it being used in other divisions?

As I see it at this point you can buy pump gas for about 3.75. Last year we paid 8.75 I believe for the gas at the sprints. Lets assume we used about 18 gallons last year. By the time you flush the system 2 or 3 times this is what I used. $5 savings times 18 is $90. If I thought that SCCA could in deed have a test that would protect our interests, I will throw in the 1st $100 and am sure we could get at least 5 others to do so. At that point and early in the process, we would let it be know that the first two cars gas samples will be sent to SCCA. My guess is we wouldn't have a problem. The real question is can SCCA determine that there is in deed a differnce between pump gas and hot fuel? If so I would take a chance and it wouldn't cost me much more that the additional cost of last years spec fuel.

I'm afraid I'm with Denny on this one - no spec fuel makes my participating unlikely (I was iffy anyway).

Also - going down the protest path that Dave G describes has very little appeal (to coin a phrase) - one of the reasons I run SRF is that we almost never have to deal with the mechanical protests of other classes since the Enterprises enforcement process has worked pretty well.

As for the question of hot fuel - at least in SEDiv I don't think we have a problem at present. Whether there is "hot fuel" out there that will pass the tests or not - I have no idea. But passing the fuel test does not mean that there is not hot fuel - it just means it passes the test.