What fuel is now legal to run?

[dude22]

I have a speedway reasonably close that has CAM2 racing fuel at 110 oct. Is it legal and is the 110 oct. ok?

[David Ferguson]

What's it's dielectric constant? Does it react to the magic chemicals in the SCCA test kit? The only way to find out is to have a sample tested. You probably want to make sure there is some margin in the DC test -- I've seen variances of +/- .25 with the same fuel in tests performed within a few hours. For most purpose-built race cars, we're required to have a DC of less than 0.

[DaveW]

CAM2 110 is NOMINALLY legal. However, if you've been reading the FF1600 site, if the tank had something else in it , the fuel might test illegal. The definition of what's legal in SCCA is what you had tested and passed their fuel test that weekend!

[dude22]

Well they have had the same pump for the cam2 for at least the last 8 to 10 years so I don't think it was used for any other fuel,(thats not to say that some tanker driver has never filled the tank with the wrong fuel)

[BrooksHall]

OK this might seem simplistic but wouldn't it seem logical for the SCCA to test the track gas to get a reading at the start of the weekend? I rarely buy gas anywhere but at the track I'm racing at. If you were to buy track gas with the confidence that it was not tainted then you should not be punished if that gas fails testing. If the SCCA tested the gas before hand at least they would have a baseline to go by. I am missing something here?

[David Ferguson]

Here's what you're missing: Some track's don't have "track gas". At Portland there are about 3 or 4 vendors, each one has 2 - 6 varieties of fuels available, including exotic ERC blends. Many competitors bring their own fuel to know what they have.

The only way we are going to get SCCA to quit the fuel testing, is when every competitor requests a sample to be tested before every session. Soon they will realize the futility of putting the burdon of selecting legal fuel on the competitor -- we don't have the capability to determine what is legal without the test.

[GR]

Michael,

I was too earlier this season. I had to do some "research" myself to find out what the heck was going on (or going in) to be sure I was up2snuff.

Since that time, I found that since I was using VP fuel, I think there were about three choices from VP that met the 0 DC test.

Of those I chose the VP110. It was in my price range and convenient ($5.25/gal at the VP pump here locally), and because our very own Frog (the legal guy that he is) suggested it was probably what our motors liked (Not only, contrary to opinion, the fact that it is also PURPLE .

[Purple Frog]

Actually VP does have two better fuels than the 110. DaveW has made us aware of them. The problem being that they are rarer, and more expensive. For me to get them, I would have to commit to a full drum. 110 is really two much octane to get the best power. But when in Sopchoppy, buy what they sell in Sopchoppy, and my VP dealer has a lot of 110. and it is purple.

DaveW was talking about VP921 and VP921RT. There is also the old standby, VP Red (but it is harder to find. maybe discontinued?) VP C11 is a good choice, as is VP 2-BBL. VP says C11 is a SCCA fuel, for whatever that is worth.

Also, I buy all my fuel out of fresh VP drums and bring it with me. That eliminates the scenerio of the driver putting the wrong fuel in the big tank at the track.

[size="1"][ June 17, 2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Purple Frog ][/size]

[DaveW]

Actually, the last few times I used VP C-921, it was no better than Avgas, and Sandy (QSRE) also said that it was not worth the $9/gal or so it costs. The VP C-921RT is a bit cheaper, but I haven't tried that.

[Joefisherff]

The folks that failed at the Indy IRP race this year bought their gas at the Speedway down the street from the track. It was CAM2, when he called the CAM2 distributor to tell him about the problem the distributor told him that many of the Speedways switch the pumps to KEROSENE over the winter versus installing another pump. When the switch is made to racing fuel in the spring the residual kerosene is sufficient to queer the test results. Also, as was brought up on the Formula1600 site, the testing procedures, fuel gathering procedures, etc. are far from standard. Differences in fuel and vessel temperatures will skew the results enough to fail your sample. Best advice, buy AVGAS - 100LL and truck it to the track. At INDY the test results were POSTED on the pump leading the competitor to believe they would be in compliance only to be told by the scrutineers that it was their responsibility to have their fuel tested and pay the $5 each time they filled up. When everyone starts trucking their fuel to the track and the tracks lose that revenue guess who will make it up with higher track rentals and entry fees???

[Dane Whaley]

I ran Sunoco CAM-2 110 all last year and never had a problem. It's very close to the D.C. limit though.

PS- and I got tested at least 5 times.

[Greg Mercurio]

Ferg: I do understand your frustration, no one likes to tow long distances and days away from home to be DQ'd by the fool test. It's stupid, it's irrelevant, and the means have taken precedence over the end.

However, the statement that the only way to get SCCA to stop testing is not accurate, and will do nothing to advance the early demise of testing in general.

Reason? Because the perpetrators of the testing don't do it, aren't affected by it, and don't give a damn about the people that have to do it, have to DQ competitors, and have to see them at every race thereafter. Trust me, I've seen loads more stories than what's posted here.

The suggestion will have a very real effect on the level of service I can provide at each event though, because it takes 2 people to expeditiously test fuel, relieving them from other more relevant duties for the entire weekend. Ughhhhh

My strong suggestion is to continue to pressure Topeka with horror stories about contaminated fuel supplies, and perhaps threaten to stop competing en-masse if they don't get over their fascination with this bs. I sure as hell would support a boycott if it brought an end to fool testing. Money speaks very loudly at HQ nowadays.

The other side, is that WE have to stop buying exotic, dangerous, and illegal fuels. Boycott those fuel suppliers that put the poisons in the fuel and SCCA might just stop being foolish.

PS, one of the first items on our To Do list is to sample all of the pumps at the track, and POST THE RESULTS ON THE PUMP. That way, when you buy the wrong fuel, it's your issue to deal with, not mine. Some competitors really don't know what DC reading is required for their car. If you're not sure, call your Chief Scrutineer.

End of rant.

gm

[David Ferguson]

Greg,

You are right. Torturing the scrutineering staff is not an acceptable side-effect. The Stewards on the other hand, don't seem to mind it.

I know what fuel is legal (and seems to have margin), I just need to be more careful next time, particularly when traveling out-of-region.

[DaveW]

A basic problem with a track certifying that its fuel passes the SCCA test: What happens when the competitor can prove he filled up at the pump, but then added something else after ( or prior to) filling up? In this case, having the track certify the fuel certainly didn't legitimize his fuel.
That is why, WHEN THERE IS FUEL TESTING, it will always be the individual competitor's responsibility to make sure the fuel that is IN THE RACECAR will pass after the session.
This is NOT meant to infer that I think this relieves the track or SCCA from letting competitors know when there is a known problem with the fuel supplied at the track, even if it was during a prior weekend.

[size="1"][ June 18, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: DaveW ][/size]

[Charles Warner]

Dave,

Good point. However, I can testify to the frustration of having legal fuel (as tested), then filling up from the VP supplied fuel at IRP (supposedly tested OK that morning) and then, after the race having illegal fuel. I have to say the Tech people at IRP were extremely nice in allowing my result to stand as (1) the DC was .01 and (2) I showed I had purchased the "track fuel." Plus, I was the only car in class.

What bothers me most about this whole situation is that the Club has insisted on ZERO telerance yet the manufacturer of the testing equipment only certifies the results to +/- 2%. So, with a zero tolerance system we allow potential variations between testing rigs of up to 4%?

My vote is to lobby for testing with justification (RFA or protest), and establish absolutely Draconian penalties. i.e. If caught blatantly over the limit (or maybe caught 3 times barely over the limit) you are excluded from racing for the rest of the year. If caught at the Runoffs you are excluded for all of next year. Establish limits that are outside the area of allowable tolerances.

[BrooksHall]

It would seem logical (should I use that word?) that if say 4 people bought track fuel and all of them tested positive then it's the fuel not the competitor. I really have a problem with this rule if you bought a product in good faith and it fails you loose your hard earned results. If for some reason you are the only one of 4 then that is a different matter and then it becomes more of an issue.

If the SCCA is going to continue to do these test then they need to allow you to test you fuel for free while having your car teched. I understand that this rule was put in place to ban the fuel "cocktails" but how prevelent was this problem?

[size="1"][ June 18, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: BrooksHall ][/size]

[Frank C]

I think Charlie Warner is on the right track. We all seem to have horror stories of racers who have failed tests using fuel that should be acceptable and is not the bad hazardous stuff. The tests certainly seem problematic and some reasonable level of uncertainty should be established, perhaps with tests being performed only as the result of protests (based on the smell test?). I don't think a poor scrutineer testing fuel sitting at a picnic table in the heat at Topeka (with 20 racers looking over his shoulder!) has a good chance at reaching the accuracy achieved in careful laboratory tests in a controlled environment. How repeatable are the tests? My favorite quote on this goes "One test and you think you know the answer. Two tests and you know you don't." Is there a chemist in the house?
- Frank C

[size="1"][ June 18, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Frank C ][/size]

[Greg Mercurio]

Dave W, right on point as usual. We can't tell whether a competitor has adulterated a fuel that has passed, between the time it was dispensed at the pump and the time he left the course. That's why the benefit of the doubt is always on the side of the house.

Charles W, I couln't agree more. People who are caught adulterating their fuel should have really bad consequences. The key phrase is "caught adulterating their fuel."

Unfortunately, how do you rule on the cheaters vs. the unfortunate? At our last Regional, a FF driver topped off from a fresh drum of Trick fuel, supposedly leaded, and post qualifying random sampling in Impound found a DC reading of 1.2 or so. We sampled the drum and it was 5+. So do we bust this driver for purchasing in good faith, but getting royally shafted by the supplier?

And therein lies the problem of separating the "must win" cheatin' lyin' sons of coyotes from the unfortunates. If we can do that and make it 100% accurate, we could dispense with fuel testing altogether.

BTW, the latest FasTrak makes mention of even more evil chemistry designed to fool the tests. It will end when we stop buying the crap and put the mad chemists out of business. Until then, expect more testing and more rationale for testing and even more reagent tests, and then a mobile lab, paid for by each Region, paid for by "one time" surcharges for fuel testing.
.................Ughhhhhhhh..................

gm

[PF2000]

If people are using legitimate fuel and doing everything they can to keep it from contamination, then it would be logical to assume that the tests are too strict and do not have enough leeway to allow for variations in testing equipment accuracy. SCCA needs to allow for these variations and be more flexible on the pass / fail system.

Also, racing fuel suppliers should be held to a higher standard of product quality and consistency, especially based on the price they charge. If they can’t meet the test, then we as customers should demand they improve their production quality or we won’t buy from them. That is why Avgas is the best choice if you have access to it, because the product quality and consistency is of the highest standard.

[dc]

It seems as though a rule restricting fuels that cannot be tested by the entrant on their own leaves too much to chance in ANY circumstance. The only ones it will really hurt are the people who are using fuels that don't pass unknowkingly. We can't check these fuels on our own and are required to pay to prove our own innocence.

I always thought that buying the race gas at the track was the safest thing to do, leaving out all possible chance that you would get bad gas, but that is obviously not safe, either. It seems as though with the restrictions as tight as they are and the chances of fuels that test outside the limits of legality much more common than you would guess, we are all rolling the dice every time we buy gas ANYWHERE.

This doesn't seem right to me, but it does smack of the SCCA. Don't get me started on bat corking.

[Tim FF19]

The good news for FF and FC is that we can use 100LL AV gas. Here are the benefits:
1) Passes SCCA test every time
2) Recomended by respected engine builders like Sandy at Quicksilver
3) Its available at any local airport
4) Its a lot cheaper than any "race" fuel
5) Quality control for 100LL is much better than most race fuels (lets face it - the race fuel producers do not have the same liability issues as the AV gas producers)
6) Airports do not put kerosene in their tanks in the winter
7) If you fill your car before you leave home you only need another 10 gallons for a regular weekend.

Disadvantages
1) You have to lug it around instead of buy it at the track.
2) ? Can you think of any others

Tim Dunn

[Dano]

“Disadvantages”

2) It’s against FAA regulations to dispense it into anything but an aircraft, so some FBO managers may give you a hard time.

3) You will need a registration number (N number on airplane) to purchase it.

4) It was designed to run in an engine with a max rpm of about 3K, so it has a “slow” burn pattern.

5) The low lead (LL) designation is a misnomer; the stuff is full of lead.

I put disadvantages in quotes because they are not really disadvantages and there is numerous ways to get around each. They are more like nice to knows.

[Larry]

I know of NO FAA regulation that prohibits dispensing it into something other than an airplane. Please quote the reg #, and I'll be glad to look it up and post it on this site.

Larry Oliver

[Charles Warner]

Larry,

Don't believe it's an FAR but it is contrary to State, and probably Federal, tax laws to dispense aviation fuel into anything other than an aircraft or a container to be used for aircraft. All has to do with the taxes that are charged and where the tax money goes: aviation slush fund or the road tax funds.

[PF2000]

The FAA does not regulate the dispensing of the fuel, only the fuel itself. State and Federal exise tax issues relate only to the on-road vehicle use of the fuel. As long as it's used for off-road purposes, taxes are not an issue. Sales taxes are already included in the pump price at the FBO. Some may ask what your using it in to varify the tax liability, but most sell to a large number of boaters, ATVers and racers. As long as your paying with cash or a credit card, you do not need a plane serial number or hanger number. If they ask, tell them you are rebuilding aviation motors

[EYERACE]

1. Right about the road taxes on AV gas and therefore not illegal to sell for any off road use, >tell 'em it's for a plane you are building at home, so you have no N number yet and it's time to test the motor or> let's see here aviation #'s are an N followed by five digits [am I correct?]so just make one up on the spot! or> tell 'em it's for your air boat but the second point gets real nasty here we go...2. If more than one person [so you've got witnesses] buying gas at a track is DQ'd - though the SCCA is a sort of nonlitigious group of club members [and eye like it that way]- the vendor is NOT the SCCA and to sue for the thousands of dollars wasted [because of a fuel DQ] with a long tow, tires, lodging, meals, etc. and the price of the crap track gas too is not an impossiblity. This must be considered if i'm reading above correctly - it was Grattan or IRP and though it was known the fuel was crap that sales continued ???? I do eyes but the possible scenario of a bad sale to some sue happy attorney is a thought i don't really want to consider. This scenario would not exist if fuel rules were made to be a protest thing by either a course worker breathing the stuff or another driver only and not the whim of the Chief or any other Steward. The vendor doesn't want to accidentally sell crap gas but secretly juiced stuff should be regulated....if a car's fuel drawn flunks....i say we also impound his jugs and that receipts be produced proving if his gas was bought at the track or not.....but let's all remember - there ain't a system yet that can't be beat. DQing several people that accidentally bought the same bad gas is something the Chief steward should have overruled at the track - we are there for the fun - i can just read the appeals in Fastrack now!

[Terry Hanushek]

Doug

It seems as though a rule restricting fuels that cannot be tested by the entrant on their own leaves too much to chance in ANY circumstance. The only ones it will really hurt are the people who are using fuels that don't pass unknowkingly. We can't check these fuels on our own and are required to pay to prove our own innocence.

You can test the dielectric constant yourself but the equipment is relatively expensive for the small amount of testing that the typical competitor would do. The reagents used in the supplemental tests are proprietary and not available to individuals. The nominal fee ($5 in many regions) about covers the cost of expendables (hexane, reagents, etc). The cost of an occasional fuel test should not be an issue.

I always thought that buying the race gas at the track was the safest thing to do, leaving out all possible chance that you would get bad gas, but that is obviously not safe, either. It seems as though with the restrictions as tight as they are and the chances of fuels that test outside the limits of legality much more common than you would guess, we are all rolling the dice every time we buy gas ANYWHERE.

The basic steward and scrutineer guidelines call for the testing of the track fuel (if there is one) at the beginning of a race weekend. The results should be posted. If I were the Chief Steward and the track fuel failed, I would quietly suspend compliance testing of fuel for the weekend. If independent fuel vendors are present at an event with fuel testing, it would be prudent for them to have their fuel tested voluntarily .. and it would be prudent for customers to ask these vendors if their fuel has been tested and has passed.

This doesn't seem right to me, but it does smack of the SCCA. Don't get me started on bat corking.

OK, I won't talk about bat corking but I do have a comment on race fuel. In the past couple of years we have had clearly defined rules for race fuel and an easily administered field test to insure their compliance. These rules were instituted because of increasing use of rather toxic fuel mixtures. These rules and the testing have eliminated most of these toxic blends. There are, however, some individuals who continue to seek an advantage by pushing the envelope. It is for that reason, that fuel testing will remain part of our racing for the forseeable future.

That's my $.02

Terry

[Charles Warner]

Terry,

Your points are all valid and well made. My main concern is that we have a zero tolerance policy yet the manufacturers of the testing equipment (at least the one we use in the Midsouth) only certify a tolerance of +/- 2.0%, A .01 DC is disqualifying for most cars, no?

Can this really be considered reasonable and fair? This is why I can test valid at Memphis one weekend and the same fuel will be illegal the next weekend in St Louis.

I agree something needs doing to stop the use of designer fuel. As I said earlier, Draconian punishment for those caught blatantly altering their fuel. We can find a quantification that would differentiate between a designer fuel and a slightly elevated DC or reagent.

[Greg Mercurio]

I've noticed that someone at High Desert Engineering is visiting this site, and probably this topic. As the manufacturer of the kit that SCCA uses, perhaps they'd like to weigh in on the reported accuracy and tell us what it really is?

gm

[Terry Hanushek]

Charlie

Your points are all valid and well made. My main concern is that we have a zero tolerance policy yet the manufacturers of the testing equipment (at least the one we use in the Midsouth) only certify a tolerance of +/- 2.0%, A .01 DC is disqualifying for most cars, no?

This policy is consistent with the measurement standards for weight, track, valve size and many other standard dimensions in GCR 11.4. The measurement equipment (scales, calipers, yardsticks, etc.) all have tolerances yet the standards are absolute (zero tolerance).

For the physical dimensions with absolute measurements, there is normally a safety factor build into the preparation i.e. a car with a minimum weight of 1300 lbs may be setup with 1310 lbs to cover variations and contingencies. Likewise, if the accuracy of the DC meter is a concern, the use of a fuel with a stated DC slightly under the absolute DC would be prudent.

I agree something needs doing to stop the use of designer fuel. As I said earlier, Draconian punishment for those caught blatantly altering their fuel. We can find a quantification that would differentiate between a designer fuel and a slightly elevated DC or reagent.

In our steward training, we discuss different penalties for slightly out of spec and blatantly out of spec infractions with the latter having a much more severe penalty.

In NEDiv, a fuel that is a couple of tenths out of spec is treated similar to a sound reading of 104db - it is non compliant and the car cannot finish in front of compliant cars. A race fuel that shows 5.0 when it should be 0.0 would most likely incur additional penalties like license suspension. As in most actions that we address, mitigating factors such as the 'wrong tank' anecdotes will be taken into account.

Terry

[Charles Warner]

Terry,

I'm afraid I can not agree with your statement that it would be prudent to run a fuel with a DC somehwat under the allowable to preclude being caught out by the vagaries of testing equipment. How do I know what the "prudent" level will be at each track if there is no consistency in measurement? My example is a fuel sample taken at Memphis that was well below the magic 0.0. Then, a week later, with no addition of different fuel, a reading of over 0.0 at St. Louis.

When this was mentioned the answer was "we use OUR testing system." Terry, if a fuel is tested legal by one region that same fuel should be legal in ALL regions. If there are vagaries caused by manufacturer tolerance criteria then the worst case scenario should be factored into the requirements. I know of competitors at the Runoffs who had a fuel sample tested immediately prior to the race and it was deemed good. After the race, with no additional fuel added to the tank, the same fuel tested bad. We are only talking of an hour's time!

You say that a "minor" infraction would be dealt with much less severely than a major one. This is logical. However, you also say the racer would be classed behind all compliant racers. The racer has still spent a lot of money, done his best to be legal, taken all precautions, and still is moved down the finishing list?

The bottom line is becoming a trade off. If the club wants racers to continue to spend their hard-earned dollars attending club events (an out of area event costs me about $850) it needs to develop a plan and system whereby fuel testing is accomplished in a reasonable and logical manner. If not, there are many who will vote with their wallets. This is, after all, a participant driven system. Lest we forget that . . .

[size="1"][ June 20, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Charles Warner ][/size]