2013 STU Discussion!
Disabling the ACD just makes the center differential act only as an open differential. The car would still be AWD.
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
Some Fastrack news:
1) There's an opening on the STAC.
2) New rule proposal:
#9999 E85 Comments
Add to the last sentence in 3.6.A the following:
“Pump gasoline above 95 octane is prohibited.”
Comment: Per the STAC, higher octane fuels have many of the disadvantages of E85, while costing more and being difficult to source. This gives advantage to those willing to trailer their cars, which is not within the spirit of the category.
1) There's an opening on the STAC.
2) New rule proposal:
#9999 E85 Comments
Add to the last sentence in 3.6.A the following:
“Pump gasoline above 95 octane is prohibited.”
Comment: Per the STAC, higher octane fuels have many of the disadvantages of E85, while costing more and being difficult to source. This gives advantage to those willing to trailer their cars, which is not within the spirit of the category.
I've used E85 in my car both trips to nationals, but I remember some grumblings about finding 93 octane in Lincoln? I know the Harley dealer has higher octane at the pumps, but did they have something that would meet the 95 octane rule that is not 91?
EDIT: I bring this up, because many areas have 93 octane readily available. If I were to have a car tuned for 93 and could not find anything greater than 91 in Lincoln area that met the proposed rule... I'd be
EDIT: I bring this up, because many areas have 93 octane readily available. If I were to have a car tuned for 93 and could not find anything greater than 91 in Lincoln area that met the proposed rule... I'd be
Last edited by psushoe; Nov 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM.
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: CT
i've used e85 in my car both trips to nationals, but i remember some grumblings about finding 93 octane in lincoln? I know the harley dealer has higher octane at the pumps, but did they have something that would meet the 95 octane rule that is not 91?
Edit: I bring this up, because many areas have 93 octane readily available. If i were to have a car tuned for 93 and could not find anything greater than 91 in lincoln area that met the proposed rule... I'd be
Edit: I bring this up, because many areas have 93 octane readily available. If i were to have a car tuned for 93 and could not find anything greater than 91 in lincoln area that met the proposed rule... I'd be
Like allowing the 350Z and C5 vette in STU, this new reduced octane rule IS going to happen. Unless we get an email letter campain against the new reduced octane proposal soon, it will be too late to do anything.
Don't be fooled by the 95 wording, when that get approved there is a very strong push to go to 93 oct.
The unleaded street legal 100 oct rule has been in place in STU class since the beginning. It helps out our turbo motors survive, by preventing detonation.
At the very least the rule take-back will cost a lot of us $ to get retuned, with a resultant loss in (safe) power. There have have been at least 3 motors blown in recent years among some of the nationally competitive Evos. The additional octane acts as a safety net on our highly stressed motors.
Some of us only have 91 at the pump, so we mix 100 octane in for safety. That fuel would be illegal under the new rule. The SCCA already has looked into octane testing for SOLO, so we need to be proactive about the issue this time.
The Evos need all the power they can get against the new STU cars. At the last national event, the winning STR 350Z was faster the current STU National Champion in his Evo. This was with a ProSolo like start, on low a grip surface, with the 350Z on 255s. Take away the full AWD launch, on high grip concrete, and especially with the Z on the increased 285 tire size, and the 350Z would be significantly faster.
I don't blame the STAC, they are reacting to the additional fuel comments that came in with the E85 ban. But no one on the the new STAC races with a turbo, so they may not to as sensitive to this issue, unless we oppose it. Brief, non-cookie cutter email note, with a few concise points why you are for keeping 100oct, is what they are looking for. Let's stop the momentum at the STAC level, before it goes to the SEB and then the BOD.
Rick
Don't be fooled by the 95 wording, when that get approved there is a very strong push to go to 93 oct.
The unleaded street legal 100 oct rule has been in place in STU class since the beginning. It helps out our turbo motors survive, by preventing detonation.
At the very least the rule take-back will cost a lot of us $ to get retuned, with a resultant loss in (safe) power. There have have been at least 3 motors blown in recent years among some of the nationally competitive Evos. The additional octane acts as a safety net on our highly stressed motors.
Some of us only have 91 at the pump, so we mix 100 octane in for safety. That fuel would be illegal under the new rule. The SCCA already has looked into octane testing for SOLO, so we need to be proactive about the issue this time.
The Evos need all the power they can get against the new STU cars. At the last national event, the winning STR 350Z was faster the current STU National Champion in his Evo. This was with a ProSolo like start, on low a grip surface, with the 350Z on 255s. Take away the full AWD launch, on high grip concrete, and especially with the Z on the increased 285 tire size, and the 350Z would be significantly faster.
I don't blame the STAC, they are reacting to the additional fuel comments that came in with the E85 ban. But no one on the the new STAC races with a turbo, so they may not to as sensitive to this issue, unless we oppose it. Brief, non-cookie cutter email note, with a few concise points why you are for keeping 100oct, is what they are looking for. Let's stop the momentum at the STAC level, before it goes to the SEB and then the BOD.
Rick
here's what I said...
plus i'm sending a letter to the SAC letting them know that the STAC is trying to change their rules (since 3.6.A also applies to all stock/street class cars).
I am opposed to changing rule 3.6.A to ban street legal fuels below some arbitrary octane limit proposed in the december fastrack. I assume you guys know how fuel works so I'll refrain from lecturing you on the importance of 100 octane to preventing motor destruction in racing applications. Instead I'll point out that there are key differences between why I supported the limitation of the use of E85 and I am against limiting the octane rating of gasoline fuels beyond what is already federally approved for street use.
I supported limiting e85 use in ST because in order for e85 to be safely used on a non-flex fuel vehicle a large majority of cars require changes to the fuel system beyond what is allowed by the ST or stock class rules. The result is situation where competition can drive people to take risks with the fueling/tuning that significantly reduce the reliability of the engine for a proven performance gain.
I am opposed to limiting the octane rating of the existing stock/st gasoline fuels for essentially the same reasons I supported the e85 limitation. The main difference is all cars that use gasoline for fuel from the factory have a fuel system with capacity to provide safe AFR for 100 octane fuel without the need for changes not authorized by the rules. In addition, setting an octane limit below 100 octane will not remove the need for purchasing 100 octane fuel as you will still have to buy it for mixing with 91 or 93 octane to reach any octane limit you try to set. In that situation (of mixing an unknown quantity of fuel in your gas tank with a known quantity of 100 octane to attempt to increase to a higher octane limit) there will be wide variance of the accuracy of said mixing, leaving the possibility of an honest competitor accidently miscalculating and falling afoul of the rules. I do not see that as fair situation for the rules makers to put our competitors under. With the current rules, so long as you use fuels that are legal in mixing, you cannot fall afoul of the rules accidently. Finally, this proposal does nothing to reduce the desire to switch between multiple race and street tunes. With a lower octane limit, competition will drive people to take risks with the tune to gain power for race day and the result is you have a tune that detonates like crazy and that you can't drive on the street because it will blow your motor...but will win races.
I understand that the current federally approved fuel rule isn’t perfect but this proposal does nothing to improve upon it and on several aspects actually makes it worse.
Thank you for your time,
I supported limiting e85 use in ST because in order for e85 to be safely used on a non-flex fuel vehicle a large majority of cars require changes to the fuel system beyond what is allowed by the ST or stock class rules. The result is situation where competition can drive people to take risks with the fueling/tuning that significantly reduce the reliability of the engine for a proven performance gain.
I am opposed to limiting the octane rating of the existing stock/st gasoline fuels for essentially the same reasons I supported the e85 limitation. The main difference is all cars that use gasoline for fuel from the factory have a fuel system with capacity to provide safe AFR for 100 octane fuel without the need for changes not authorized by the rules. In addition, setting an octane limit below 100 octane will not remove the need for purchasing 100 octane fuel as you will still have to buy it for mixing with 91 or 93 octane to reach any octane limit you try to set. In that situation (of mixing an unknown quantity of fuel in your gas tank with a known quantity of 100 octane to attempt to increase to a higher octane limit) there will be wide variance of the accuracy of said mixing, leaving the possibility of an honest competitor accidently miscalculating and falling afoul of the rules. I do not see that as fair situation for the rules makers to put our competitors under. With the current rules, so long as you use fuels that are legal in mixing, you cannot fall afoul of the rules accidently. Finally, this proposal does nothing to reduce the desire to switch between multiple race and street tunes. With a lower octane limit, competition will drive people to take risks with the tune to gain power for race day and the result is you have a tune that detonates like crazy and that you can't drive on the street because it will blow your motor...but will win races.
I understand that the current federally approved fuel rule isn’t perfect but this proposal does nothing to improve upon it and on several aspects actually makes it worse.
Thank you for your time,
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 154
From: Why do they always call the Evo the Dark Side?
That is a really great argument (mixing inevitable, easier to do 100% of 100 oct, than try to fabricate some sort of mix). I will be sure to include it in my letter.
i think this is the official list.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/regist...s/web-fuel.htm
interesting note that VP apparently registered their MS103.
Last edited by griceiv; Nov 26, 2013 at 12:33 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 441
Likes: 33
From: Seattle
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Letter I submitted to STAC on octane ruling and some others discussing in thread below:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2574253
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2574253
Fully agree with everyone's points about the octane proposal. Will be preparing and sending my letter in the very near future! Also thank you cpasti for the link to additional discussion! I am sure all the turbocharged vehicles, no matter what make, are on the same page.
Murph
Murph