THE QUESTION OF FUEL
PART 6 – Additive Performance Testing
In earlier segments of this series we’ve talked about fuel additives used to improve engine performance. We’ve looked at the basic properties of fuels that may impact how much energy they make available upon combustion and how some additives may increase ( or decrease) that available energy. We’ve also looked at various means of detecting these additives and how the tech man can spot them in the field. Now it’s time to take a hard-numbers look at what sort of advantage the fuel cheater can expect to gain from using these materials.
As you may recall from Part Five, (NKN June 1995), we established a threshold of detectability for each of the nine additives that we have been testing, both on the Digatron meter, and with two different water absorption tests. In order to generate meaningful data for this performance testing portion of the project, we ran fuel samples with more than one concentration of the additive in question. For example, earlier testing showed the threshold of detectability for Propylene Oxide to be about 2% by volume, when mixed with otherwise legal race gas. We then ran dyno testing on that fuel with 2% Propylene Oxide added and compared it back-to-back with the same sample with 10% added, also back-to-back against a legal sample. Hopefully this will address the question of “Oh yeah, Well I heard that Johnny Go-fast put some of that stuff in his gas and it gave him more top end between 18,000 and 19,000 RPM!” Let’s find out if adding this stuff really works, and how.
In order to insure uniformity of results, all samples were based on Phillips B32 race gas. Comparison testing on the dyno has shown that this high-quality race gas will produce consistently higher performance than four other race gasolines generally available, and substantially higher performance than any pump gas or combination of pump gases. As with earlier tests in this series all samples were mixed 20:1 with Burris oil, mixing four ounces of Burns Castor and two ounces of Burris Blend per gallon of fuel. All testing was done on Fox Valley Kart’s electronic engine dyno with periodic base-line samples re-run to insure repeatable data. Torque readings, from which horsepower is calculated, are accurate to .001 foot-pounds. All data, torque, RPM, cylinder head and exhaust temp, are collected by the computer 10 times each second, then computer averaged around each plotting point. While the absolute horsepower numbers may vary from one dyno to another, what we’re interested in here are comparative figures.
PROPYLENE OXIDE
Propylene Oxide’s primary contribution to the combustion process centers on it’s high heat of vaporization. As we discussed in Part Four of this series (NKN June 1995), this high heat of vaporization means that, as it passes from a liquid to a gaseous state in the carburetor, it absorbs a significant amount of heat and, thus, cools the incoming fuel charge significantly, making it denser. While Propylene Oxide brings along some of the oxygen it needs for it’s own combustion, it also takes additional oxygen from the carburetor air. It’s specific energy is slightly less than that of gasoline, so don’t expect any help there. It’s combustion products are C02, CO, and water vapor. As you can see from the graph, there is no measurable performance difference between the base-line fuel and the sample containing 2% Propylene Oxide, slightly above the threshold of detectability with the Digatron meter. However, by increasing the concentration to 10% by volume, well above what even the most bumbling tech man should be. able to spot, we begin to see the effect of improving the charge density on the low end. This effect diminishes as RPM increases, probably because this higher air velocity through the carb dramatically improves the atomization of the gasoline and the resulting chilling of the incoming charge.
Conclusion: Yes, using Propylene Oxide may help the low end performance or used in sufficient quantities. But unless there is no fuel tech at all, you can’t get away with running enough to get any improvement.
NITROMETHANE
Nitromethane has been the number one fuel in the drag race’s bag forever. When it comes to delivering maximum bang in the combustion chamber, Nitromethane is the ticket. But that big bang only comes with massive quantities of Nitromethane. Drag racers have the luxury of passing almost unlimited amounts of whatever fuel they choose through the induction system. Karters do not. To burn efficiently and liberate more energy than regular gasoline, you’ll need on the order of 10 times more fuel if you use Nitromethane! Not a likely scenario given karter’s garbs and their pumping capabilities. Anyway, in our first graph we see the effects of using 2% Nitromethane by volume verses un-doctored race gasoline. Last time we showed that Nitromethane was detectable on the Digatron meter at concentrations of less than 1%, but we chose to use 2% here to assure an adequate response. You can note that there is a very minor enhancement on the low end of the curve, and this may again be due to improved heat of vaporization as with the Propylene Oxide. But, as before, the output is absolutely identical at RPMs over 11,700. In the second graph, with 10% Nitromethane, we begin to see some measurable results from this additive. The low end increase is still there, indicating some higher energy output as well as the cooling effect. At higher RPMs the considerably higher specific energy of Nitromethane begins to show. Higher concentrations would undoubtedly generate even higher performance. But, because this material is so easily detectable, we do not see the need. One rather less attractive feature of Nitromethane that appeared, even in the 10% concentration, is it’s substantially higher heat output. During the relatively short duration of our dyno run, we saw cylinder head temperatures climb dramatically over what we had seen with the gasoline only sample. At the same time we saw exhaust temperatures fall, a combination indicative of detonation. It should be expected that extended running would require a richer mixture to avoid sticking. Such a richer mixture would probably diminish the performance improvements somewhat.
Conclusion: Like Propylene Oxide, it’s unlikely that any performance improvement can be achieved using concentrations of Nitromethane that would make it past even the most rudimentary tech inspection.
NITROPROPANE
Nitropropane is, of course, chemically related to Nitromethane. It’s more complex chemical bonding structure does not lend itself to the same specific energy potential as Nitromethane, and it is slightly more oxygen hungry. It is generally considered to be about 70% as potent an additive as Nitromethane, when used in sufficient quantities. One advantage over Nitromethane is Nitropropane’s higher resistance to detonation. However, it’s lower heat of vaporization diminishes the increase in charge density at low RPMs. Nitropropane is even more visible to the Digatron meter than the other additives tested, tripping the meter to +6 at only 2% by volume. Nonetheless, we tested it on the dyno at 2% and 10% to maintain some continuity with our testing procedures. As expected, the 2% Nitropropane sample exhibited no measurable performance improvement over the straight race gas results. Low RPM output actually decreased in the 11,300 RPM to 11,700 RPM range, with no apparent explanation. Likewise, there is a minor improvement between 13,200 RPM and 13,500 RPM. This increase is neither of sufficient magnitude or duration to be of any real value. The next graph, showing the effects of 10% Nitropropane, exhibits the same low RPM depression, only to a greater degree and longer duration, as the 2% sample. While we do not have a firm explanation for this effect, it is consistent with the earlier run. Further up in the RPM range, however, the enhancement effect of using Nitropropane is more apparent. Also, we did not see the same evidence of detonation with this sample as we saw earlier with the 10% Nitromethane.
Conclusion: Nitropropane can be a useful additive in settings where no fuel tech is being used. While less powerful than Nitromethane, it’s higher resistance to detonation more than makes up for that deficiency. However, some as yet unexplained low RPM phenomenon actually hurts lower RPM performance, and the effect increases (that is the power DECREASES) as the concentration is increased. But, if the Digatron meter is in use, it’ll probably go off when your drive in through the gate with this stuff.
ETHYL ETHER
Most commonly used, fuel-wise, as the major component in starting fluid for those cold winter mornings, Ethyl Ether has both a very high heat of vaporization and a very low flash point. Those properties make it the perfect cold weather engine starter but, (thank goodness) we don’t race in sub-zero conditions. It’s specific energy is lower than gasoline and it’s very low boiling point (95 degrees) make it difficult to keep around in mixed fuel for very long: it simply evaporates away! Regardless, some folks have insisted that it was the secret key to better lap times, so let’s take a look. In the first graph, again using 2% Ethyl Ether, We could find absolutely NO measurable variance in power output over the same fuel without the Ethyl Ether. Tiny variances in the raw data were too small to show up on the graph at all. By increasing the concentration to 10% the effect of the high heat of vaporization begins to show up on the low end. The cooling effect of the vaporization of the Ethyl Ether treated fuel was greatest at the lowest RPM and steadily decreased. Although it is hard to pick up on the graph, the performance actually dipped below that of the undiluted race gas at the highest RPM range, although very slightly. Once again, Ethyl Ether is very easily detectable with the Digatron meter in concentrations as low as 1%.
Conclusion: Unless you’re racing at the South Pole, there really isn’t anything to be gained here. Small concentrations don’t do anything at all. And even if you wanted to run enough to get the minor low speed charge cooling effect. the smell is a dead give-away. Spend your time and money elsewhere.
TOLUENE AND XYLENE
We’ve chosen to lump Toluene and Xylene together for several reasons. If you read the previous article (NKN July 1995), you probably noticed that we poured substantial quantities of Toluene and Xylene into the base fuel samples trying to get the Digatron meter to react. The best we could do was to push it down to ?8, and that with over 50% of each additive! The reason is simple: both Toluene and Xylene are major components of normal gasoline! They’re already in there in substantial quantities. Increasing the concentration does nothing but raise the octane rating of the fuel, and, if you’ve kept up with your reading, you already know that raising the octane, in and of itself, is of no benefit to almost all karting engines. Again, in keeping with our goal of maintaining consistency in our testing routine, we dynoed samples with 2% and 10% of each, both Toluene and Xylene. As expected the 2% graphs show only the most minor variation, with some gain in the low RPM range. This is most likely due to the increased octane rating from adding these materials helping to suppress some high load, low RPM detonation.
Conclusion: This one’s a red herring. If you must pour something in your fuel to feel like you’re getting some sort of special advantage, add Toluene and/or Xylene. The won’t do you any good, but they won’t do you any harm either, and you most likely won’t get caught. One note of caution: if the tech man is using either of the water tests we outlined earlier in this series, a 10% or greater addition of Toluene or Xylene may show up.
1,4 DIOXANE
Of the additives we tested, this one has caused the greatest concern amongst the karting public, and with good reason. It is a skin- absorbable poison and a Class-A carcinogen. While it does not show up on the Digatron meter, it is easily detectable with either of the two water absorption tests outlined in Part Four. Again we ran dyno tests at two concentrations. However, because of 1,4 Dioxane’s much higher threshold of detectability, we chose to test at 10% and 20% by volume. The results on the two graphs point out what the effects of this material are, both good and bad, as well as it’s cumulative effect. It is generally thought that 1,4 Dioxane’s benefit lies in it’s improved oxygenation of the combustion reaction. That appears to actually reduce power output in lower RPMs by, in effect, leaning out the mixture. In this RPM range the carb settings are often too lean already and this additional leaning may result in failure. However, as RPMs increase and the Walbro carb translates into an over-rich condition, the oxygenation effect begins to pay off. Higher combustion temperatures will likely accompany this change. Comparison between the 10% graph and the 20% graph indicate that the addition of more 1,4 Dioxane increases both the negative low RPM effect and the positive high RPM effect.
Conclusion: This is a tough one. Here we have an additive that actually does something; part good, part bad. But more importantly, this stuff is VERY VERY BAD FOR YOU!! Some of you other old-timers will remember when some folks ran Hydrazine (that’s liquid rocket fuel, really) back in the 60s. Like 1,4 Dioxane, it was very dangerous to mess with. The sanctioning bodies made it illegal and threatened lifetime suspensions for anyone caught using it. Now there is considerable pressure coming from several sanctioning bodies and clubs to suspend anyone caught using 1,4 Dioxane for life. I totally support this position. Any competitor who exhibits so little regard for themselves or their fellow competitors as to expose them to this material has no business in karting. Let me repeat, 1,4 Dioxane is VERY DANGEROUS, both to use and to be around. If you see anyone using this material, notify the officials IMMEDIATELY! In liquid form it is highly absorbable through the skin and HIGHLY TOXIC. It is also listed as a LETHAL CARCINOGEN. This is not anything that you want being used around you or your family, it has major health risks!. DON’T STAND FOR IT!
HI REV 3:1
This additive is described as a fuel conditioner and combustion enhancer. Because of it’s relatively low delectability with the Digatron meter, fuel tech will be best accomplished with either the water-fuel Digatron test or the 30-30-30 test. Thus far none of these is definitive when looking for Hi Rev 3:1. As we do not currently have any definitive data on the composition of this product, and MSDS data sheets are not available, testing is continuing. Once we have a better handle on what is in there, we’ll be able to give you
specific testing protocols to spot it.
Conclusion: Until we know more about what is really in this stuff, and what it’s benefits and hazards are, we can’t really speculate. We’ll also have to get better tech procedures for this additive, and we will. More on this one later.
KLOTZ COXOC (Stealth Additive)
This product is from one of the longtime leaders in the lubricant industry. During discussions with several at Klotz, they repeatedly pointed out that it is not intended for use at sanctioned events, or events where fuel is required to meet standard tech guidelines. Nonetheless, they have promoted it as being an undetectable performance enhancer. We will continue to pursue further information about the specific makeup of this product and how that may be of interest to the karter. Please note; Klotz COXOC is readily detectable both with the fuel/water Digatron test and with the 30-30-30 test. As we learn more about the composition of this product, we will pass on additional tech testing information.
Conclusion: Like the Hi Rev 3:1, our inability to get hard data on the composition of this product was temporarily limiting our ability to reach any conclusions. It is somewhat disturbing to see a product marketed as “undetectable” in tech, regardless of the manufacturer’s claim that it is not intended for use in sanctioned events. It is, of course, not undetectable, as we have shown. As we learn more about it’s composition we will pass that information along.
So there you have it; real numbers testing. What works and what doesn’t. By now it should be pretty obvious that do-it-yourself fuel chemistry is not only dangerous, it’s foolish. Unless you’re a PhD chemist, or have access to sophisticated testing facilities, the chances are that messing with your fuel will only make you go slower, increase the likelihood of damaging your engine, and get you bounced at tech for your trouble. The people who really know about fuel are the people who do it for a living; the oil companies in their racing divisions, and the professional additive manufacturers. Trying to outsmart them, and the tech man, is a fool’s mission. As we’ve stated earlier, there is almost no likelihood of you producing any kind of fuel concoction that will perform better than high-quality racing gasoline. It’s designed to do the job you have to do, it’s free from any of the EPA and other government tampering that makes pump gas such an unknown from week to week, and, very importantly, it’s going to be the same day after day, week after week, month after month. I know we haven’t found the final answer to the fuel question yet. Nor have we pinned down how to tech for every possible additive the fuel cheater might use, but we’re working on it. In the weeks and months to come we’ll bring you updates on our research.
The goal is, and will continue to be, to keep honest karters honest, to catch and penalize cheaters, and to continue the spirit of safe, fun competition. On a personal note, I think it’s very important to recognize that the overwhelming majority of karters play by the rules, fuel-wise and otherwise. I hope this series of articles has not given anyone the impression that fuel cheating is wide-spread. I don’t believe that is the case. But what I really can’t understand is what satisfaction those few that do beat the rules get from their efforts. A trophy won unfairly can’t be much of a source of pride, and how sad to know, in your heart, that it’s the only way you could win. Cheaters may try to justify their actions by saying that they’re only doing what everyone else is doing, but I know that’s a lie, and so do they. What a pity.
Well gang, where do we go from here. I’ve learned a lot from doing this series, and I’m not through learning yet. As I said, I’ll be passing along what I come up with from time to time, but for right now it’s time to look forward. Next time, we’ll be doing a little crystal-ball gazing; trying to see what’s on the horizon, fuel-wise. We’ll look at some alternative ways of seeing to it that every competitor on the grid has safe, legal fuel.
THE QUESTION OF FUEL
PART 7 – Tech Procedures Revisited
Last month we finally got the awful truth; if someone really wants to cheat with their fuel, they can, and the odds are, they’ll get away with it. But how can the honest racer help keep the playing field level? How can you and your club keep fuel cheating under control? Let’s start by getting a couple of things clear. Like it or not, legal fuel will always be defined as fuel that will pass whatever test is being used. That means that, whatever it says on paper, if you or your club or track don’t tech fuel, then fuel is open! Likewise, if you don’t tech it the same way every time, you jeopardize the credibility of the tech. It is critical that the fuel tech be thorough, properly done, and fairly administered. Too many times tech people, even at the highest levels, have gone “headhunting” for a person whom they believe was cheating with their fuel. And their claims that the selection of who was to have their fuel checked was completely random, when everybody knew better, only made them look foolish and diminished the credibility of the whole process. We’ve already covered several fuel tech techniques in an earlier article, and we have a few more we’ll share with you shortly, but first, let’s look at the right way to use the Digatron meter.
We’ve all had our fuel checked with the Digatron meter lots of times, and it seems like every tech man does it different. But, hey!, if my fuel checks OK who cares how he does it? Well, you ought to care, because if the tech man isn’t using the right procedure, you may be racing at an unfair disadvantage to a fuel cheater who slipped past the tech man because the testing procedure was wrong. Here’s the way to do it right.
1. Turn on the meter and immerse the probe in cyclohexane. The cyclohexane should be in a plastic container, not glass. I know that Digatron supplies little glass bottles with the deluxe fuel testing kit, and they’re real handy, but they can affect the meter readings. Always use plastic containers.
2. Allow the meter to “warm up” for at least, five to 10 minutes before setting the knob to read -55. If you just turn it on and start taking reading:. it will “drift” on you a bit. By the way, when you are “zeroing” the meter at -55, hold the probe in the middle of the container of cyclohexane, away from the bottom or sides. Something called the “Adjacency Affect” can change the meter readings if the probe is too close to the sides or bottom of the container.
3. The prescribed -55 setting is presumed to be at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature change will change the meter readings. The temperature of the fuel sample being tested and the cyclohexane standard must be about the same. A temperature difference of five degrees or more will make a measurable difference in the readings. When in doubt about fuel sample temperature, take a sample of the fuel to be tested, and let it sit next to the cyclohexane sample for about 10 minutes. Just be sure to put the fuel sample in a tightly sealed container so you don’t lose anything to evaporation.
4. The meter should be re-calibrated every 30 minutes or so, to compensate for any “drift” in the zero point and to keep everything right. But here’s where lots of folks mess up: Once the meter is calibrated, it is not desirable to re-immerse it in the cyclohexane after every fuel sample is checked. Doing so only dilutes the cyclohexane with random fuel carried back into the container on the probe. As the day goes on, the standard on which you are basing your testing will change. Not good. Instead, after each fuel is tested, gently shake any excess fuel off the probe and blot lightly with a paper towel.
5. Periodically clean the probe with aerosol brake cleaner and allow it to dry completely. This product will evaporate completely and will not contaminate the next fuel sample. It is important to clean the probe occasionally because some of the oils in use may remain on the probe after the gasoline has evaporated. In most cases this is not a problem, but sometimes it can bite you.
6. Just as when you “zeroed” the meter in the cyclohexane, when you take a reading on a fuel sample, don’t let the probe get too close to the sides or bottom of the tank. Otherwise the “adjacency affect” may change the readings. If a competitor does not have enough fuel to take a good reading in the tank, then he or she is obliged to draw a sample through the fuel line to the carb into a smaller container for testing. Of course, according to the rules, if a competitor cannot produce enough to be properly tested, the tech man is required to disqualify them.
7. In the event that you find a fuel sample that does not pass the meter, that is, one that reads + numbers, immediately stop testing, clean the probe as described above, and recalibrate in cyclohexane. The test again. Fuel that fails under these circumstances should be considered illegal.
8. Moisture in the fuel will shift the meter in a positive direction. Rainy days, or even high humidity can cause fuel to come up illegal. Unfortunately, the rules do not allow for the tech man to vary the definition of legality just because it might have rained the night before! (Racers beware! I once saw a man lose a National event because he left his fuel in the kart tank overnight the fright before the race and it picked up enough moisture to fail fuel tech the next day!)
9. In cases where a fuel sample reads illegal (or suspiciously low) on the meter, you may request that a sample of the oil in use be mixed with a known legal gas. While it does not affect the immediate question of legality of the racer’s fuel for that race, it may help identify whether the problem is in the fuel or in the oil.
Using this procedure, the same way, every time, will insure that fuel tech is fair and consistent. Now on to other issues.
Those of you who read Part Six of this series (NKN September 1995) will recall that there are some fuel additives that generate some performance improvements and some that we did not have adequate information on to draw any conclusions. And if you remember Part Five of the series, you’ll remember that not all these additives show up in testing with the Digatron meter. Even the water/Digatron test and the 30/30/30 test are not as definitive as you might like: in some cases. Among these additives is 1,4 Dioxane, a very hazardous chemical. Among other things, 1,4 Dioxane is a carcinogen, and a skin-absorbable poison. This is nothing to fool around with! While 1,4 Dioxane will slide past the Digatron meter, there is now a definitive test to identify it in the field. We are indebted to the good folks at Precision Automotive Research, to the National Hot Rod Association and particularly to a company called Germane Engineering in Provo, Utah for their work in developing a positive field test for 1,4 Dioxane. The test is a simple chemical reaction done with materials supplied by Germane Engineering and is available to bonafide sanctioning bodies and their tech people. It requires a few, easily obtainable supplies, and some care in handling, but the test itself is simple and relatively foolproof. Here’s how it works:
1. Draw a clean fuel sample from the competitor’s tank and put in a small test tube. Disposable eye-droppers work really well for this and are available very cheaply at any laboratory or medical supply. These are also known as disposable pipettes. The test tube should be no larger than l0ml capacity to be easily readable. Five ml size is ideal. These too are cheap and easy to obtain.
2. The test tube containing the fuel sample should be about 1/2 to 3/4 full. This will give the person doing the testing a clear view of any reaction. It’s a good idea to write the kart number right on the test tube before doing the test to avoid any confusion.
3. Always wear rubber gloves when using the test reagent from Germane Engineering. It is a strong acid of some sort and you definitely don’t want to get any on your hands.
4. Hold the test tube by the bottom so you can get a clear view of what happens in the fuel sample and carefully squeeze ONE DROP of the Germane reagent into the top of the test tube.
5. As soon as the reagent hits the fuel sample, the oil in the fuel will drop to the bottom of the test tube. THIS IS NOT A POSITIVE TEST!
6. If, however, a white or light brown precipitate forms (like little snowflakes) at the point where the reagent hits the fuel sample, and it drifts down through the fuel, THAT IS A POSITIVE REACTION FOR 1,4 DIOXANE! Any fuel sample producing such a reaction should be considered illegal and the competitor disqualified.
7. Used test tubes and eye-droppers should not be re-used and should he properly disposed of. Always use new test tubes and droppers for each new test.
Again this test was developed for the National Hot Rod Association by Germane Engineering under license from NHRA and they alone own the rights to it. Test materials are available only to bonafide sanctioning bodies and only when accompanied by a strict non-disclosure agreement. Any organization wishing to make use of this important testing tool should contact Germane Engineering by FAX at 801-374-0345 or you can contact me at Fox Valley Kart. 317-742-(1935, and I will help make the necessary connections. I want to stress again, use of 1,4 Dioxane is very dangerous, and no club, or track, or sanctioning body should fail to take every possible step to curb its use.
Last month I told you that we did not have sufficient information to report on two additives tested previously; Klotz COXOC and Hi Rev 3:1. We now have that data and can report that both of these products generate POSITIVE REACTIONS to the test outlined above. With the use of this test that are both now easily detectable and should not prove to be any problem for the tech man.
I STRONGLY urge you to contact your local track or club, and shops in your area, and tell them about the findings concerning products containing 1,4 Dioxane. This is a case of where we. the karters, will have to provide the enforcement for manufacturers who, apparently, have chosen not to regulate themselves. Take an active role. Police this at a local level and protect yourself, your family and your sport. The best way to stop the use of this stuff is for the manufacturers to stop making it. And economics dictates that they’ll stop making it if we stop buying it! Now that we have a dead-reliable test for 1,4 Dioxane that is cheap and easy to do, every track, every club, and every tech man ought to be doing this, every race. WE MUST NOT TOLERATE THE USE OF 1,4 DIOXANE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!
One more thing about these additives: It’s important that you understand that the purpose of this series of articles has been to educate the karting public. This is not a witch hunt. What separates karting from most other forms of motorsports is that, for most of us, karting is an end in itself. While many karters aspire to drive at Indy or in the Daytona 500, most of us do this because we love it and we know, deep down, that this is how we’ll satisfy our love of racing, and that there is no Indy Car or Winston Cup ride in our future. Karting is not a matter of life and death, and it shouldn’t be. It’s about fun, fair competition. It’s about testing yourself, not about testing the tech man. I can’t believe anyone in karting is so driven that they would knowingly jeopardize their health, or that of their families, their friends, or their competitors for the sake of a small advantage in performance.
What 1 do believe is happening is that karters are using 1,4 Dioxane, without knowing it, or knowing what the hazards are. I know of at least one team owner who openly admitted that his fuel contained one such product, but didn’t know what was in it or that it was dangerous or illegal. When their fuel failed the Dioxane test they were surprised, and when they found out what they had been running all season they were more than surprised, they were angry! “How could anybody who cares about karting sell this stuff? How could they not tell buyers what the hazards are?” Good question.
In the weeks ahead we will be working with a group of concerned karting industry leaders to pressure the companies who are making and selling these products to stop. In an industry that has historically been unable or unwilling to regulate itself, this will be an interesting undertaking. Of course, we’ll keep you posted on how it develops.
Next month will bring the last of the planned installments of “The Question of Fuel” series. As I’ve said before, I really didn’t start out intending this to be an eight part series. But the depth of information that came to light while researching this, plus the level of interest from around the country, has driven the expanding nature of this work. We will, of course, bring you periodic updates as new developments arise. But next month we’ll try to wrap it up by taking a look at what we should all expect in the future, fuel-wise.
Clubs and tracks around the country are all trying to do the right thing and keep cheating under control, and they’re doing it by a variety of different methods. We’ll look at those, and at the pros and cons of each. We’ll try to offer some suggestions for immediate remedies if your club or track is having fuel problems, and we’ll try to look way down the track to see what’s available as a long-term solution. Of course, if you have any input, or suggestions on this subject, or on subjects for future articles, please FAX me at 317-742-0935. NKN continues to be an excellent forum for the exchange of ideas and information to make karting a better sport. Your ideas help make it better.
THE QUESTION OF FUEL
PART 8 – What’s the Solution?
It’s been about a year since we started looking into the whys and wherefores of gasoline as a manageable kart fuel. And by manageable, I mean: 1) readily available, 2) reasonably priced, 3) delivers acceptable performance in today’s engines, and 4) can be easily and reliably checked for compliance with current tech regulations. Together we’ve looked into what factors affect how a fuel liberates its energy during the combustion process. We’ve also come face-to-face with the rather untidy and unpredictable formulation of today’s crop of available pump gasolines. The continued tampering with the formulation of mass consumption gasoline, whether by government mandate, or market pressures, makes any efforts to develop standardized testing procedures a very risky business indeed. We already know that gasoline from a source that passed the Digatron test last season (or even last week) may not pass today. We should expect this situation to get worse rather than better. While the Digatron test was a significant milestone in fuel tech, the introduction of ether-based products into gasoline, today primarily in the form of methyl tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), by the oil companies in efforts to boost fuel mileage and reduce tailpipe emissions, has reduced the usefulness of this benchmark. While the Digatron meter will definitely point out the presence of alcohols, ethers and other highly polar compounds, we can no longer be certain how they got there. Did the competitor “juice” his fuel to gain an unfair advantage? Or did he innocently purchase fuel that was already tainted by the manufacturer? No tech man wants to throw out an innocent competitor, but there must be some way to keep the fuel tampering under control. As long as racing gasoline is not governed by the same regulatory and market forces that affect pump gasoline, it will continue to be the most attractive alternative to address this dilemma. And to those who howl at the cost of racing gas, take a look at the real cost difference. Even if race gas is $6 a gallon, subtract the $1.20 a gallon you’ve been paying for pump gas (that leaves $4.80 difference) and multiply by your actual usage for a day of racing. If you’re running sprint or dirt, you’ll be hard pressed to burn up more than a couple of gallons a day (or night) so we’re talking less than $10 here big deal. And you enduro racers, even with a Friday practice day, you burn what, maybe five or six gallons in three days. That’s less than $30. The fact of the matter is, until there is a better alternative, using racing gasoline is the surest way to avoid having all your driving talent go for naught at the tech shed.
Enough about the problem. What’s the solution? It should come as no surprise that there are folks all over the country working on this one. During the course of writing this series I have heard from karting organizations from coast to coast, as well as from people involved in snowmobile racing, motorcycles, and the American PowerBoat Association. Everybody’s facing the same problem. And these people and their organizations have tried, and are trying, lots of different solutions to deal with it. Let’s look at a few of them.
In some areas the approach has been “spec fuel.” In fact, some organizations on the East Coast have been doing this for some time. It’s just a variation on Klotz KL-200 plus gas comparison test with the Digatron meter that has been outlined in the tech books for years. The organization selects a particular brand and grade of gasoline, and in some cases oil too, and declares that the competitors fuel sample must meter within some range (usually five points) of the standard. The test assumes that the fuel that is selected is untainted with additives or other chemicals that would alter the meter reading. It also assumes that the quality of the specified gasoline will remain constant throughout the season. I have been told by some officials that their local fuel dealer has assured them that this would be the case. That’s all well and good, but, unfortunately, the local fuel dealer has no more control over what the refinery is doing with the composition of the fuel they deliver to him than the consumer does! He gets (and we get) whatever comes in the truck. And in many cases, it may vary from delivery to delivery. An evening spent watching tanker trucks load at a nearby refinery revealed a tremendous variety of truck markings being loaded from the same source. While I watched, in the span of only three hours, I saw trucks marked with signage from seven discount gas station chains, and two major oil companies, load up from the same filler-tube. The fact of the matter is, neither you nor the dealer has any real idea where the gasoline you buy came from, or more importantly, what’s in it. So setting a numerical reference on the Digatron meter based on a “spec fuel” is a very risky business, both for the organization, and for the racer. The exception to this, of course, is if the “spec fuel” is a specially formulated racing gasoline. As I’ve said before, these products are carefully controlled by their manufacturers to ensure consistent quality and freedom from contamination. In areas where this sort of “spec fuel” program is in use, it can only be expected to work if the baseline fuel is a racing gasoline.
Secondly, we understand that the Digatron meter measures the dielectric constant of the sample. But its readings are not linear. That is, if adding five percent of something to the sample moves the meter reading 10 points, that does not necessarily mean that adding 10 percent will move it 20 points. In fact, depending on the additive, doubling the quantity might not move the meter reading at all, or it might jump dramatically! From this we can say that applying some arbitrary allowance of variation from the meter reading of the “spec fuel” cannot provide an accurate look at the sample, or any determination as to whether or not it has been tampered with by the competitor. Finally, this comparative method of using the Digatron meter as the sole determinant in tech ignores the fact that, with a little experimentation, a dedicated fuel cheater can use some additives to “mask” the presence of other additives in the fuel. That is, by adding materials that have a very high dielectric constant, it is possible to effectively hide additives with a somewhat lower dielectric constant. As long as the finished fuel generates a reading within the required range, the fuel passes tech. No, there has to be a better way.
Another approach is to actually provide legal fuel to the karters at the track; to contract a vendor for legal fuel to be at the track on race days and suggest that anyone not confident in their fuel’s ability to pass tech purchase fuel from him. This puts the burden on finding a reliable vendor on the club or track management and also offers the opportunity for the embarrassing discovery in tech that the “track gas” isn’t legal after all. I have seen this happen more than once, where competitors discovered in post-race tech that the fuel they had purchased at the track was contaminated. At one national event, the top six finishers in the first race of the day were disqualified and dismissed from the tech area before the problem was discovered. Once they had left the tech area, officials correctly ruled that, despite the error, they could not return and be reinstated. It was an awkward and extremely difficult situation that could have been avoided if only the officials had teched the “track gas” first. In a sport (and a nation) that many think already has too much regulation, telling people they must run the “track gas” is not a very popular position. But providing a reliable source at the track at least assures that everyone has access to legal fuel, if they choose to purchase it. I should point out that the selection of a vendor is critically important to the success of this approach. Of course, the consistent quality of the fuel must be assured. But also, while you should expect to pay some premium for the service of having someone bring his truck to the track, the selling price of the fuel must not be abusively high. In some cases it may be appropriate for the club or track to pay the vendor a “service fee” above and beyond the price of the fuel to insure that those additional costs are not passed on to the karter in the form of unreasonably high fuel prices.
An extension of this approach that is finding some success on the West Coast is to not only provide legal gas at the track, but to actually require that everyone use it. It’s a lot like the “pump around” so common in 4cycle racing these days. The track or club actually purchases the gasoline, mixes it with oil at some recommended ratio, and dispenses it directly into the competitor’s fuel tank. Here’s how it works. At the pre-grid, the karters are required to present their karts with fuel tanks empty and the fuel line disconnected from the carb. The tech man watches the karter connect the fuel line to the carb and safety wire it. The tech man then dispenses the desired amount of fuel into the tank and the tank is sealed. Before the karter may return to the pre-grid for the next qualifying, heat race, or whatever, he must drain any remaining fuel from the tank. Regardless if he spun out and killed it on the pace lap of the first heat, before he goes to the grid for the second heat the tank must be empty and the fuel line off the carb again. I presume this
makes for some pretty expensive gas going into the tow vehicle, not to mention the oil. And on the subject of oil, the folks I spoke to said their clubs simply selected a different oil each year from those in most common use, and announced that it would be the oil, and in what ratio, for the season. On the surface this is a pretty good system. It assures that the officials have pretty much complete control over the fuel being used. However, the removal of any opportunity to choose your fuel, or your oil, rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Particularly the oil. If your engine builder has told you he wants you to run four ounces of Castor and two ounces of Yamalube R per gallon in the engine he built for you, that’s what you ought to run. Maybe the engine builder has some specific reason for that recommendation, or maybe it’s just the result of his years of experience. In either case, finding out that the supplied fuel will be mixed with three ounces of Red-Line (for example) is not going to inspire much comfort in you or your engine builder. But this is a minor issue compared to the question of time! Remember, you can always make more friends. You can sometimes make for horsepower (that may cost you friends). And you can try to make more money (that will bring you false friends, but may help pay for the horsepower). But you can never make more time. The controlled dispensing of fuel on the pre-grid consumes manpower and no small amount of time from the program. Even if everyone arrives at the pre-grid early (that would be a first), it’s simply a matter of having to go through all the steps, one kart at a time. I’ve been told by some people that, in order to implement this type of program, they had to cut the number of classes the track ran in half! While you might agree that reducing classes is sorely needed, this is not the way you’d like to do it. Delays and downtime between races aggravate karters and bore what few spectators we might have. And the more thorough the tech man’s inspection to assure that no additive is already in the otherwise empty tank, the longer this thing takes. Racers come to the track to race, not to stand around. The more waiting time increases, the more disgruntled the racers will be, and the less likely that they’ll come back next week. We need to be looking for ways to get race programs finished sooner, not ways to stretch them out longer.
All these are workable approaches to the problem of legal fuel. But we’ve heard from some karters out there that have questioned whether we need to be teching fuel at all. Now wait a minute!! Before we dismiss this suggestion as permitting an “open season” for fuel cheating, let’s hake a closer look. Some of us who have been around karting for awhile (almost 30 years for me!) remember when the last fuel dilemma went around, back when we were racing McCullochs. The question then wasn’t what fuel could be run, but rather what could be done to the carb to allow alternative fuels to be run. After years of crying and wringing their hands about what would become of the sport if everyone was allowed to run whatever fuel they wanted, IKF (they were the only sanctioning body then) opened up the restrictions on carb passages to allow everyone to run methanol. Almost overnight methanol became the overwhelming choice of karters, and the use of nitrobenzene, and hydrazine, and other additives virtually disappeared. Given the choice, and the freedom to drill their carb passages to the required sizes, racers found that straight methanol gave them the best performance, improved tuneability, and was easier on the engines. Maybe there is something to be said for learning from history. Certainly today’s 2-cycles are a far cry from the Macs. And the Walbro curb used on the Yamaha and other piston ports is a virtual soda-straw, throttle bore wise, compared to the carb on the McCulloch. But if the rules were to allow it, and if the carbs could be drilled to make it easy and reliable to do it, I’ll bet it wouldn’t take long before everybody was burning methanol. If the Garb passage sizes were controlled so that the extraordinarily high volumes of additives like nitromethane and such required for combustion were not attainable, the question of fuel legality would take care of itself. Tech would be a simple matter of a couple of no-gos in the Garb passages.
I know of several innovative karters who are testing in this area already. They report that they can efficiently burn 100 percent alcohol through an otherwise unmodified Walbro carb, with very little redrilling of passages. They also report not only improved performance, but also less plug fouling, cleaner combustion chamber and piston crown, and no ring sticking from carbon and gum buildup. Incidentally, one racer who is experimenting with methanol fuel points out that even with the higher fuel consumption using methanol, at $2.25 a gallon, he’s saving money over the $4.50+ he was spending on race gas. This is definitely something to look into. As is so often the case, local clubs and organizations will have to take the lead on this and try it. If it helps solve the fuel problem, eventually the national sanctioning bodies will follow suit. We’d all like to see the big organizations take the lead on things like this, but it doesn’t always work that way. Someone will have to do the legwork first. Will it be your club or track? Ask about it and discuss it. And, please, let me know how it works.
There is absolutely no reason to think that, without some radical re-thinking, the fuel situation is going to get any better. The oil companies are going to continue to meddle with the composition of gasoline, whether dictated by the government, or for competitive market reasons. Faced with an ever-changing product, karting will have to redefine what constitutes legal fuel, either by changing the tech techniques, or by changing the fuel itself. Tom Stinitz, President of Digatron Instruments, tells me that at present they have no plans to introduce any fuel testing instrument other than the DT-15. He is aware of the DDT-15’s shortcomings but, unless or until some alternate testing protocol is developed, they don’t know what they should design to facilitate it. Perhaps there is someone out there with an idea of how to test fuel in such a way that changes in the manufacturers additive package won’t influence the results. I’m no chemist (although I’ve heard a lot of chemistry in the past year on this project), but maybe one of you is. It’s a big challenge, and one that will have a long-lasting impact on the sport. One thing is certain though.
We can’t keep doing things the way we have been. It’s bad enough to let fuel cheats pervert the spirit and intent of karting. But it’s even worse to unfairly disqualify perfectly honest competitors because the tech techniques we are using have not kept pace with the fuel that is available. If the enormous growth of “outlaw” tracks has taught us anything, it should be that rinky-dink rules are unwelcome and unwanted in karting. And fuel tech that is unfair, or outdated, is just that, rinky-dink. So let’s hear it out there. What do you think? Spec fuel? Track supplied fuel?
It’s an important question and one that all of us should be concerned about. Please write or FAX me your comments and I’ll see to it they get presented on these pages. You can write me c/o Fox Valley Kart, 520 N. 9th St., Lafayette, IN 47904, or FAX me at 317-491-3746. Talk with your club or track and let us hear your thoughts.
Well that about wraps it up on the subject of fuel for now. Hopefully we all know more now then when we started. (I know I do!) We’ve looked at what the fuel does and doesn’t do in the engine, and what additives do and don’t work, and in what quantities. But, mostly, we’ve hopefully done away with some of the mystery, the “smoke and mirrors” that surround what we and our fellow competitors are buying. I continue to believe that the vast majority of karters are honest, hard-working racers who want to compete fairly. Oh sure, there are a few who insist on trying to win by beating the tech man instead of winning fair and square. But I really believe they are few and far between. I’m a lot more concerned, fuel-wise, about the honest competitors who are at risk of being tossed out in fuel tech because either their fuel was tainted by the manufacturer, or because our tech procedures are not adequate to deal with today’s crop of commercial gasolines. To paraphrase a famous jurist, “It is better for 10 guilty men to go free, than to wrongly punish one innocent man.” Let’s put the considerable talents and resources of the karting community to work and develop a workable solution to take us into the next century. Thanks to all of you who have provided input on this series, and we’ll see you at the track.
:cheers: