Fuel Spec at LRRS

[Jim]

since LRRS is considered the CCS North East region, I'm curious why LRRS is the only CCS region that has a fuel spec.

it's one of the shortest tracks in the CCS schedule, so i'm not really understanding what the big advantage would be running MR12 or U4.4 over someone running 93 pump gas.

i'm hoping Eric or Graham chime in on this one.

[butcher bergs]

...among other things that are unique to LRRS.

[GixerJockey]

My guess: Someone got caught cheating and created the necessity for the rule.

[Jim]

this isn't a bitch session Bergs. i just want an honest reason/explanation from an official.

Noel, define cheating.
All other CCS regions allow any type of fuel. Tracks like Daytona, VIR, and NJMP have longer straights than NHMS, i dont see how better race fuels really benefit. Yet we're limited two 6 types of fuel, and enforce testing.

[GixerJockey]

this isn't a bitch session Bergs. i just want an honest reason/explanation from an official.

Noel, define cheating.
All other CCS regions allow any type of fuel. Tracks like Daytona, VIR, and NJMP have longer straights than NHMS, i dont see how better race fuels really benefit. Yet we're limited two 6 types of fuel, and enforce testing.

I don't feel like pouring over the rules. (Josh will be along any minute for that). I'm just making a fair assumption. Most organizations are "reactive". There must have been a problem, or a bitch out of someone, for LRRS to enact the spec fuel rules back in '09.

[nhbubba]

What's the penalty for being caught with trucked in 93 pump gas?

[Jim]

right, but the horsepower gains on the front and back straights are less beneficial than the ones at VIR or NJMP. but any fuel is CCS legal at those tracks.

i remember a CCS expert that rode at the ASRA weekend at NHMS this season didnt know about the fuel regulations and got DQ'd for running the MR12 that he runs at NJMP and other race events.

it's more of an understanding of why here, but not anywhere else.
i've found myself rushing to siphon out fuel one time because i forgot i still had NJMP gas in my tank & didnt want to get my results DQ'd, as they made 2nd call.

[GixerJockey]

I went through a little bit of the same worry for Round 7 (I know, I know... return to novice, forst race in years, who cares...). I had previously run a few track days, fuel was from Shell outside the track, tank was half full. And realized at the last minute that Shell was no longer an approved fuel. Asked Graham, he laughed at me... And I just ran that fuel out at Penguin Friday practice and filled up with 93 purchased at the track.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the penalty for being caught with trucked in 93 pump gas?

DQ from the race that was run with non-spec fuel, if you happen to get lucky enough to catch a post race fuel test.

[Kurlon]

From what I recall when this initially came up, it wasn't HP gains, it was trying to keep people from showing up with some truly noxious homebrew. Because the track is so small, the impact on racers and staff from some of the options out there was noticiable. The only way to viably enforce fuel controls was to restrict to a limited set of known fuels (testing for individual banned substances wasn't possible with reliability) hence the fuel regimen now in force. Grahame is the man to ask on this one.

[The Snowman]

Even more interesting is that it's not legal to mix spec fuels. I had this discussion with Graham at the beginning of the season, since I use the 98 pump gas for racing and the 93 pump gas for track days.

It probably has a small percentage to do with money. When people buy gas from outside the track, the track doesn't make any money from it.

[Jim]

well VP streetblaze and C12 are allowed, and they suck.
if they allow VP, why not all VP fuels?

[butcher bergs]

this isn't a bitch session Bergs. i just want an honest reason/explanation from an official.

It's a fair statement, Jim, "among other things", I mean.

[Kurlon]

I'm assuming the choice of fuels was limited to keep the amount of tests limited? Grahame!!! Grahame to the courtesy phone please!

[gmdboston]

The cliff's notes version is this: In the early 2000's there was an arms race between fuel blenders to make a fuel that makes more power. The cost of racing fuel rose from around $4/gal to over $50/gal. That in and of itself is not a real big problem, however base stock used to make the high end, high powered fuels was among other things, Benzine. If you don't know what Benzine is, lets just say that in addition to making horse power, it can also give cancer to rocks. So while there were some objections to having to spend extra money on fuel, the nail in the coffin was when a certain factory team had to send two of their mechanics to the hospital because they got too close to an open container of fuel. (FYI the that particular fuel was rumoured to cost around $500)

You also need to understand that in order to take advantage of the additional potential energy in the fuel, compression must be raise to ratios that prohibit running pump gas. If you don't, the fancy extra expensive fuels result on LOWER power output. So the cost of running the fuel is not just limited to your race, but also practice and track days and schools.

The reason for a Spec fuel is enforcement. You can not write rules that limit specific gravity and die-electric constants that good chemist can't circumvent in an afternoon. A lot of time and effort was put in to finding a solution that allowed those who build Superbike engines to get the octane necessary to prevent detonation with out leaving a gaping hole in the rules. The bottom line is that it is almost impossible to create rules that restrict what you CAN run, so it was best to specify what you HAVE to run. In layman's terms, it's almost impossible to test a fuel for what it is, but very easy to test for what it isn't.

The track is not in the fuel business, it's a function of NASCAR rules and procedures.

FYI Snowman: you are going the wrong way with your fuel selection, you should run 98 in practice and 93 in the race. The lower octane number has a little more potential energy and a faster burn rate. The 98 will result in maximum cylinder pressure too late to make max HP output.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a fair statement, Jim, "among other things", I mean.

I have a new screen name for you Bitcher Bergs...lol

[Jim]

thanks Pete. would you think the fuel race on horsepower is still a concern now at NHMS, or is it more of a rule that's just stuck over the years?

my ECU is mapped for U4, so i try to run it outside of LRRS events when available. but then I get stuck on a terrible map using the required 93 pump. unfortunately, there's no one in New England that can tune an EMpro.

[Mr. Kurtz]

Ummm....what he said ^

(took the words right outta my mouth, I tell ya...)

EDIT: Dammit, posted too slow. This was supposed to fall right underneath PK's detailed explanation.

[tsorfas]

What I don't understand now is why the requirement is there. People going to the hospital for using dangerous fuel or blowing up their own motors is up to them. It's an individuals/teams risk.
I personally have no plans on running anything crazy but I don't believe that almost 20 years later we are told we can use only A B C fuel because 2 people went to the hospital in the 2000s.
I get the reasoning behind you cannot make a rule about what kind of gas you cannot run but why not add some more fuels to the list now since the demand is there anyways?

[The Snowman]

FYI Snowman: you are going the wrong way with your fuel selection, you should run 98 in practice and 93 in the race. The lower octane number has a little more potential energy and a faster burn rate. The 98 will result in maximum cylinder pressure too late to make max HP output.

This is good to know. I may have to have the bike dyno-ed using 93 next time. And I may dump using the $9/gallon gas for $4/gallon gas, it it actually produces more power.

Maybe it was just a figment of my imagination, but it always seemed to run better on the 98. I also may need to have a compression and leak-down test run, to see what it actually puts out. Maybe it really doesn't warrant using the 98 in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

What I don't understand now is why the requirement is there. People going to the hospital for using dangerous fuel or blowing up their own motors is up to them. It's an individuals/teams risk.
I personally have no plans on running anything crazy but I don't believe that almost 20 years later we are told we can use only A B C fuel because 2 people went to the hospital in the 2000s.
I get the reasoning behind you cannot make a rule about what kind of gas you cannot run but why not add some more fuels to the list now since the demand is there anyways?

Liability

[Kurlon]

What I don't understand now is why the requirement is there. People going to the hospital for using dangerous fuel or blowing up their own motors is up to them. It's an individuals/teams risk.

If I grid behind you, whatever crap your tractor, er, Honda is spewing is directly impacting me. Some of those gases put out exhaust that would do more than just make your eyes water...

[Gecko]

FYI Snowman: you are going the wrong way with your fuel selection, you should run 98 in practice and 93 in the race. The lower octane number has a little more potential energy and a faster burn rate. The 98 will result in maximum cylinder pressure too late to make max HP output.

This is good to know. I may have to have the bike dyno-ed using 93 next time. And I may dump using the $9/gallon gas for $4/gallon gas, it it actually produces more power.

Maybe it was just a figment of my imagination, but it always seemed to run better on the 98. I also may need to have a compression and leak-down test run, to see what it actually puts out. Maybe it really doesn't warrant using the 98 in the first place.

Pete's recommendation (I think) assumes one is running a stock motor. Not sure if you're stock or not, but if you have had some motor done and are at higher compression ... go with what the builder recommends and has tuned your bike for (usually higher octane), otherwise it can be an expensive lesson.

[Kurlon]

Pete's recommendation (I think) assumes one is running a stock motor. Not sure if you're stock or not, but if you have had some motor done and are at higher compression ... go with what the builder recommends and has tuned your bike for (usually higher octane), otherwise it can be an expensive lesson.

If the bike is already safely running on 93... that's what it'll make the most power with.

[FirstDuc-1098]

You should get better mileage with the higher octane and not run out during a race.

[SVRACER01]

i run used gas. its cheaper

[FirstDuc-1098]

I put used motor oil in to save $

[MaRce1o]

Subs