goolsbey wrote: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 will contribute the second $100.

goolsbey wrote:... 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.

The simple answer is: Yes. It took us a couple of years to fix the list of prohibited compounds to close off what some unethical fuel blenders were doing. I believe the current list shuts the door pretty firmly. (That cannot prevent someone from using a prohibited compound, if they are willing to risk being caught.)

Dave

LeeHill wrote:... 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.

Please see my previous posting. While your point is true for the at-track dielectric constant test, it is not true for the lab test. The current list of prohibited compounds really does cover the bad stuff.

Dave

Also have to agree with Denny. I hope this race does not go back to an open fuel. (And yes, I have tested and raced these fuels in the past)

The blended fuel will always be better than a random pump gas no matter what. The gain you get may not be as high as it was in the past, (Not sure I believe that either) but it’s very consistent which cannot be said of any pump gas. SCCA's interest was not to ban substances that made one fuel better then another but to ban potentially harmful substances that were being used in these fuels. If you’re willing to work with these companies (or find others who have) they will derive a blend that passes the rules as written and makes more power consistently. It’s their jobs and they are good at it.

Also, just because we are all using pump gas does not mean it’s a level field either. The power from one pump gas to another can vary significantly depending on its quality and make up.

The ONLY way to prevent this is to have a spec fuel. It should be a given for large events such as Sprints and Runoffs.

Peter Thanks! Now all we need is one more person and we can cover 1st place and the potential problem might be solved.. Not sure anyone is going to make the trip here spend the money developing the stuff knowing that if they win the race they might very well be disqualified. One sniff of the 1st place cars tank from a scrutinizer might even save us the $300. Mike are you willing to be the sniffer? Is what I am proposing doable?

I got to thinking about this last night. The use of this stuff is a direct slap in the face to all the hard work than enterprise is doing. On one hand they are sending out competitive engines (within I believe 2hp) and then if some one chooses to work with a supplier to develop hot fuel to get a 3hp advantage, all that hard work is out the door. I think it's worth the sniff test to uphold what they work so hard to do. Considering all you have to do is take the cap off, I would be willing to be the guinea pig. Pat

We've seen first hand that a sniff test does not hold any water. I've been in impound when all the competitor's fuel were yellowish and one was blue. The blue one smelled really bad, but the GCR makes no mention of how the fuel should smell. It passed the test that were performed and was therefore legal. I'm not sure if there is a fuel on the market that will increase horsepower and pass all the current test. If there is, be advised that the sniff test won't work.

goolsbey wrote:Is there any way that the top 5 finishers can be challenged by requiring their samples to be sent in for analysis

Question for Dave Gomberg: could something like this be written into the supplemental regulations?

Let's remember that for over 12 months now NO ONE has found a fuel that works. If you know more about hot fuel and its sources than Mike Davies...speak up....

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Enterprises will throw in up to 5 tests; out of our complaince budget. So sniff some pipes and tell me what cars we want to test. Shannon Snow and I will be there.

To a few other points...yes, no two pump gases are alike...and if you don't tune for them you are giving up 0.X%....which is not nothing. But if you didn't tune for the spec fuel, same deal. My point above is what is there now, for hot fuel, is fractional at best...only as good as finding your best pump gas options. i.e. less than the difference in roll down amungst a group of random cars.

teaser alert...Now if all goes well the cars will auto tune next year anyway!

porcupine wrote:

goolsbey wrote:Is there any way that the top 5 finishers can be challenged by requiring their samples to be sent in for analysis

Question for Dave Gomberg: could something like this be written into the supplemental regulations?

It could be written into the supps if the organizers chose to do so.

However, "somebody" would still need to pay the lab testing fee (5 * $250).

This would really be no different from having the Chief Steward order lab tests on the top five by a Chief Steward's Action. If a fuel sample is compliant (or "not non-compliant"), the organizing region is on the hook; if not, the driver pays. As well as suffering mandated penalties.

So it still comes done to whether someone is willing to stump up $1250 (in this example).