Rules Proposal - Octane

Moderators: Mike Simanyi, Rick Brown, Michael Palero

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:01 pm

The rationale for the change is specifically to render the unlimited boost allowance basically useless to limit how many cars got excluded from ST for being too powerful.

Not to mention federally approved it no where near enforceable, at least one can measure octane.

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:10 pm

I should also clarify that by saying “driving down participation” I don’t mean that there is negative participation trend. I mean that it is a downward pressure on growth. Just because ST is trending upwards doesn’t mean it couldn’t be trending more upwards. When the goal is to manage the performance balance of unlimited boost and the downside is that we likely increase participation it looks like a pretty good change.

Jonathan Lugod
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 922
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 194
Location: Oceanside
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Jonathan Lugod » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:03 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:I should also clarify that by saying “driving down participation” I don’t mean that there is negative participation trend. I mean that it is a downward pressure on growth. Just because ST is trending upwards doesn’t mean it couldn’t be trending more upwards. When the goal is to manage the performance balance of unlimited boost and the downside is that we likely increase participation it looks like a pretty good change.


Performance advantage maybe for Street class, but for ST you only isolate STH (new class) and STU (boost buggies already feel at a disadvantage). So was the fuel takeback focused on making sure Street Competitors with boost aren't cheating? I can tell you any performance ecu map for 91, 93, and 100 octane will have a significant advantage over a stock map anyday. So you still didn't stop anyone from cheating in terms of an ECU issue in street/stock. If that's what the SEB fear is going on currently.
http://www.osgiken.net
4 STR- 2016 Mazda ND Miata
OS Giken / Bridgestone / Bride

User avatar
Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Sean Fenstermacher » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:26 pm

Marshall Grice wrote: at least one can measure octane.


I think you can only do that with a lab, correct?

Is there any home garage use tool that can be reliably used to help drivers check if their own fuel is compliant?

My chemistry knowledge is limited on this, so if there are any such tool recommendations, please share!

User avatar
Rick Brown
Club Representative
Posts: 4663
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 240
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Rick Brown » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:44 pm

Derek, my first thought seeing your participation table was how many of those "new" people were first timers and how many simply switched from other classes?
Since light is faster than sound...many people look bright until they speak...

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:52 pm

Jonathan Lugod wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:I should also clarify that by saying “driving down participation” I don’t mean that there is negative participation trend. I mean that it is a downward pressure on growth. Just because ST is trending upwards doesn’t mean it couldn’t be trending more upwards. When the goal is to manage the performance balance of unlimited boost and the downside is that we likely increase participation it looks like a pretty good change.


Performance advantage maybe for Street class, but for ST you only isolate STH (new class) and STU (boost buggies already feel at a disadvantage). So was the fuel takeback focused on making sure Street Competitors with boost aren't cheating? I can tell you any performance ecu map for 91, 93, and 100 octane will have a significant advantage over a stock map anyday. So you still didn't stop anyone from cheating in terms of an ECU issue in street/stock. If that's what the SEB fear is going on currently.

A+ straw man argument. :thumbup:

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:00 pm

Sean Fenstermacher wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote: at least one can measure octane.


I think you can only do that with a lab, correct?

Is there any home garage use tool that can be reliably used to help drivers check if their own fuel is compliant?

My chemistry knowledge is limited on this, so if there are any such tool recommendations, please share!

http://www.zeltex.com/products/fuel/

User avatar
Anthony Porta
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 30

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Anthony Porta » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:08 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:
Sean Fenstermacher wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote: at least one can measure octane.


I think you can only do that with a lab, correct?

Is there any home garage use tool that can be reliably used to help drivers check if their own fuel is compliant?

My chemistry knowledge is limited on this, so if there are any such tool recommendations, please share!

http://www.zeltex.com/products/fuel/


https://www.ebay.com/i/352320045188?chn ... 22fffb82ae



$5500 bucks? Damn. Also how are we going to sample this again?
http://www.anthonyporta.net SOPAC solo Divisional Coordinator. Register Early for a better chance for your preferred work assignment!

User avatar
Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Sean Fenstermacher » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:40 pm

Seriously? $5000 kit just to make sure you fuel is compliant....omg lol

Please tell me the SEB worked out a member discount rate? Lol

Seriously though, since things are self policed, is there a cost effective procedure drafted by the SEB for Street and ST competitors? I would like to think these rule changes and subsequent rammifications have been thought-out and some sort of advice on methods for members to self-police or at least do a self compliance check have been drafted, no?

If a $5000 kit is the only way, will the National office subsidized a testing kit to every region, at least? Because this octane rule is supposed to help us save money, right?

If we had a kit, at least members could test their fuel and re-mix if needed.

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:55 am

Marshall Grice wrote:The rationale for the change is specifically to render the unlimited boost allowance basically useless to limit how many cars got excluded from ST for being too powerful.

Not to mention federally approved it no where near enforceable, at least one can measure octane.


I think many of these rules are made based on the chicken little principle-OMG someone will make a 1000HP Boost buggy and that will be the new normal. How about a measured and reasonable response to these singularity events vs trying to protect against the "what if someone took an F1 BMW engine and stuck it in an E36?"(a real SM fear at one point)?

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:00 am

Marshall Grice wrote:I should also clarify that by saying “driving down participation” I don’t mean that there is negative participation trend. I mean that it is a downward pressure on growth. Just because ST is trending upwards doesn’t mean it couldn’t be trending more upwards. When the goal is to manage the performance balance of unlimited boost and the downside is that we likely increase participation it looks like a pretty good change.


I wonder if the reality is exactly the opposite. Pro Solo Finales are over subscribed, Nationals are under threat of caps. What would it look like if you wanted to bring those numbers down? Rules to "disinvite" the ST masses....This growth trend if "unchecked" would over tax Solo's existing capacities. But to publicly say such a thing goes against the Solo2 tenets.

Derek

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:01 am

Jonathan Lugod wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:I should also clarify that by saying “driving down participation” I don’t mean that there is negative participation trend. I mean that it is a downward pressure on growth. Just because ST is trending upwards doesn’t mean it couldn’t be trending more upwards. When the goal is to manage the performance balance of unlimited boost and the downside is that we likely increase participation it looks like a pretty good change.


Performance advantage maybe for Street class, but for ST you only isolate STH (new class) and STU (boost buggies already feel at a disadvantage). So was the fuel takeback focused on making sure Street Competitors with boost aren't cheating? I can tell you any performance ecu map for 91, 93, and 100 octane will have a significant advantage over a stock map anyday. So you still didn't stop anyone from cheating in terms of an ECU issue in street/stock. If that's what the SEB fear is going on currently.


A little transparency in the rule making as to what exact problem is being addressed would be helpful.

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:08 am

Rick Brown wrote:Derek, my first thought seeing your participation table was how many of those "new" people were first timers and how many simply switched from other classes?


Hello Rick,
That is a good question. I don't know that answer. I don't think many first timers jump into the ST pool at Nats, but I do know the appeal of Street tires is part of the draw. The decrease in SP can only be part of the story as well. But my argument is there is something appealing "enough" in that rule set to attract that type of growth-the largest in the SCCA solo program sustained over that time....so why the tweaking of long established well reviewed 10 and 15 year old rules? There are costs to the established based(which is large) that are simply being ignored as well as the growing sense of rule instability at the worst possible time. If a class is on life support(SP) and you do nothing for years to change participation, but you apply "PADDLES" to a growing segment...flatline......(slightly over dramatic perhaps).

Derek

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:11 am

Anthony Porta wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:
Sean Fenstermacher wrote:
I think you can only do that with a lab, correct?

Is there any home garage use tool that can be reliably used to help drivers check if their own fuel is compliant?

My chemistry knowledge is limited on this, so if there are any such tool recommendations, please share!

http://www.zeltex.com/products/fuel/


https://www.ebay.com/i/352320045188?chn ... 22fffb82ae



$5500 bucks? Damn. Also how are we going to sample this again?


Just pop one of those high pressure lines in that there engine compartment...whoa....fire!....ok, roll him around!... roll him around!....now, where's that sample?

Jonathan Lugod
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 922
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 194
Location: Oceanside
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Jonathan Lugod » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:25 pm

candaul berber wrote:
Jonathan Lugod wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:I should also clarify that by saying “driving down participation” I don’t mean that there is negative participation trend. I mean that it is a downward pressure on growth. Just because ST is trending upwards doesn’t mean it couldn’t be trending more upwards. When the goal is to manage the performance balance of unlimited boost and the downside is that we likely increase participation it looks like a pretty good change.


Performance advantage maybe for Street class, but for ST you only isolate STH (new class) and STU (boost buggies already feel at a disadvantage). So was the fuel takeback focused on making sure Street Competitors with boost aren't cheating? I can tell you any performance ecu map for 91, 93, and 100 octane will have a significant advantage over a stock map anyday. So you still didn't stop anyone from cheating in terms of an ECU issue in street/stock. If that's what the SEB fear is going on currently.


A little transparency in the rule making as to what exact problem is being addressed would be helpful.


One can only hope. They tried to do that with that so called Town Hall that didn't answer or address anybodies concerns. Also did not clearly express what they were trying to solve or any current issue on hand.
http://www.osgiken.net
4 STR- 2016 Mazda ND Miata
OS Giken / Bridgestone / Bride

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:04 pm

There is this thing called the fastrack. You guys should try reading it sometime. It has all of the information I posted about the fuel rule changes in it.

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:16 pm

Sean Fenstermacher wrote:Seriously? $5000 kit just to make sure you fuel is compliant....omg lol

Please tell me the SEB worked out a member discount rate? Lol

Seriously though, since things are self policed, is there a cost effective procedure drafted by the SEB for Street and ST competitors? I would like to think these rule changes and subsequent rammifications have been thought-out and some sort of advice on methods for members to self-police or at least do a self compliance check have been drafted, no?

If a $5000 kit is the only way, will the National office subsidized a testing kit to every region, at least? Because this octane rule is supposed to help us save money, right?

If we had a kit, at least members could test their fuel and re-mix if needed.

There is a cheaper way. Don’t try to mix fuel with known illegal fuel to try to get an advantage.

Do you tear down your engine to verify compliance? I why is this any different?

candaul berber
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby candaul berber » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:01 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:
Sean Fenstermacher wrote:Seriously? $5000 kit just to make sure you fuel is compliant....omg lol

Please tell me the SEB worked out a member discount rate? Lol

Seriously though, since things are self policed, is there a cost effective procedure drafted by the SEB for Street and ST competitors? I would like to think these rule changes and subsequent rammifications have been thought-out and some sort of advice on methods for members to self-police or at least do a self compliance check have been drafted, no?

If a $5000 kit is the only way, will the National office subsidized a testing kit to every region, at least? Because this octane rule is supposed to help us save money, right?

If we had a kit, at least members could test their fuel and re-mix if needed.

There is a cheaper way. Don’t try to mix fuel with known illegal fuel to try to get an advantage.

Do you tear down your engine to verify compliance? I why is this any different?


As an example of rule making "fail", if you look at a map of 93 octane fuel stations, good luck finding one West of Colorado. So by making 93 the new normal, the SEB in their infinite wisdom have not made it any simpler. Now instead of simply fueling up with your "Federally mandated....fuel", now for those in the West, you either suck it up and enjoy the lovely 91 ethanol(Summer vs Winter fuel) or try and mix 91+100 to get to 93. Do your math carefully as you can still run afoul if your mix is off by 1 point. What The Fuel!

Jonathan Lugod
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 922
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 194
Location: Oceanside
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Jonathan Lugod » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:53 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:There is this thing called the fastrack. You guys should try reading it sometime. It has all of the information I posted about the fuel rule changes in it.


Jan 2017 Fastrack

#21094 Octane Rating
The following rule change proposal is provided by the SEB for member review and
comment:
Add to the end of the first sentence of 3.6.A as follows:
“Street and Street Touring category vehicles will use fuel which is Federally
approved for use on public highways, and which does not exceed an octane rating of
95 (per (R+M)/2).”

Oh yah, explains it all....
http://www.osgiken.net
4 STR- 2016 Mazda ND Miata
OS Giken / Bridgestone / Bride

Jonathan Lugod
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 922
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 194
Location: Oceanside
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Jonathan Lugod » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:56 pm

June 2017 Fastrack

Street and ST
#21094 Octane Rating
The following revised version of a previously published rule change proposal is provided
by the SEB for member review and comment.
Add to the end of the first sentence of 3.6.A as follows:
“Street and Street Touring category vehicles will use fuel which is Federally
approved for use on public highways, and which does not exceed an octane rating of
93 (per (R+M

...and again
http://www.osgiken.net
4 STR- 2016 Mazda ND Miata
OS Giken / Bridgestone / Bride

User avatar
Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Sean Fenstermacher » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:00 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:
Sean Fenstermacher wrote:Seriously? $5000 kit just to make sure you fuel is compliant....omg lol

Please tell me the SEB worked out a member discount rate? Lol

Seriously though, since things are self policed, is there a cost effective procedure drafted by the SEB for Street and ST competitors? I would like to think these rule changes and subsequent rammifications have been thought-out and some sort of advice on methods for members to self-police or at least do a self compliance check have been drafted, no?

If a $5000 kit is the only way, will the National office subsidized a testing kit to every region, at least? Because this octane rule is supposed to help us save money, right?

If we had a kit, at least members could test their fuel and re-mix if needed.

There is a cheaper way. Don’t try to mix fuel with known illegal fuel to try to get an advantage.

Do you tear down your engine to verify compliance? I why is this any different?


If building an engine, you can always work with your builder to make sure the components are rules compliant prior to assembly.

Unfortunately, many of us in Street and Street Touring don't have that same level of connection with our local gas stations and refineries. :roll:
We can only buy pump 91oct and 100oct from local stations and mix to get somewhat close to 93, but what if the gas that day is too octane rich?

You know very well that there can be a variance in pump fuel octane (that data was submitted to the SEB by Kyle Herbts). Supposedly, there is enough of a variance that there is a good chance fuel mixed can be out of compliance if mixed close to the maximum allowed limit.

Is there any real technical advice here? (And I am not even talking about "how to get a sample")

Seriously though, why is it like pulling teeth to get some real technical advice (that should have been released with the rule change) from the people who created the rule?

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2205
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Mike Simanyi » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:19 pm

Buy 91, run 91. It won't affect your placing in Lincoln.

Soup.

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 pm

Jonathan Lugod wrote:June 2017 Fastrack

Street and ST
#21094 Octane Rating
The following revised version of a previously published rule change proposal is provided
by the SEB for member review and comment.
Add to the end of the first sentence of 3.6.A as follows:
“Street and Street Touring category vehicles will use fuel which is Federally
approved for use on public highways, and which does not exceed an octane rating of
93 (per (R+M

...and again

Are you being intentionally obtuse? You're on the STAC, you know exactly where these letters are.

#14648 ECU Clarification
The STAC would like to clarify the context of the following group of rule proposals: 14648 ECU Clarification, 21094 Octane Rating (see above), and 21408 Making ST Hot Again (see below). The proposal regarding the changes to allow open ECUs (open boost via changes in the ECU) and plug-and-play engine control modules is intended to address the inability to enforce the current rule, while continuing to allow common tuning modifications. The proposal to create STH is also influenced by the potential changes to ECUs/boost. By placing the majority of turbocharged cars in the ST classes together, the impact of boost/engine performance changes would be relatively contained and we would maintain stability in STS and STX. Cars that are moved may be re-classed if warranted.

#22212 Fuel - provide strategy to enforce
Thank you for your input. Please refer to Zeltex.com for information on octane testing. The SCCA intends to submit protested fuel samples to a lab utilizing this type of equipment.

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Marshall Grice » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:16 pm

Sean Fenstermacher wrote:If building an engine, you can always work with your builder to make sure the components are rules compliant prior to assembly.

Unfortunately, many of us in Street and Street Touring don't have that same level of connection with our local gas stations and refineries. :roll:
We can only buy pump 91oct and 100oct from local stations and mix to get somewhat close to 93, but what if the gas that day is too octane rich?

You know very well that there can be a variance in pump fuel octane (that data was submitted to the SEB by Kyle Herbts). Supposedly, there is enough of a variance that there is a good chance fuel mixed can be out of compliance if mixed close to the maximum allowed limit.

Is there any real technical advice here? (And I am not even talking about "how to get a sample")

Seriously though, why is it like pulling teeth to get some real technical advice (that should have been released with the rule change) from the people who created the rule?

I don't know what more technical advice could be offered. Don't mix fuel and you'll be fine. At what point ever in the history of the SCCA has the SEB provided technical advice on ways to best take advantage of any other rule in the book?

Jonathan Lugod
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 922
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 194
Location: Oceanside
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal - Octane

Postby Jonathan Lugod » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:20 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:
Jonathan Lugod wrote:June 2017 Fastrack

Street and ST
#21094 Octane Rating
The following revised version of a previously published rule change proposal is provided
by the SEB for member review and comment.
Add to the end of the first sentence of 3.6.A as follows:
“Street and Street Touring category vehicles will use fuel which is Federally
approved for use on public highways, and which does not exceed an octane rating of
93 (per (R+M

...and again

Are you being intentionally obtuse? You're on the STAC, you know exactly where these letters are.

#14648 ECU Clarification
The STAC would like to clarify the context of the following group of rule proposals: 14648 ECU Clarification, 21094 Octane Rating (see above), and 21408 Making ST Hot Again (see below). The proposal regarding the changes to allow open ECUs (open boost via changes in the ECU) and plug-and-play engine control modules is intended to address the inability to enforce the current rule, while continuing to allow common tuning modifications. The proposal to create STH is also influenced by the potential changes to ECUs/boost. By placing the majority of turbocharged cars in the ST classes together, the impact of boost/engine performance changes would be relatively contained and we would maintain stability in STS and STX. Cars that are moved may be re-classed if warranted.

#22212 Fuel - provide strategy to enforce
Thank you for your input. Please refer to Zeltex.com for information on octane testing. The SCCA intends to submit protested fuel samples to a lab utilizing this type of equipment.


No, neither of those provide a clear objective over why the SEB decided to put a cap on octane in the first place. We went through this back in 2013 and it did not go through and got tabled. Even then there was no clear objective of "why" besides the SEB saying that we "should". The rule as written, someone can fill up with 91 or 93 and potentially be over 93.9 due to lack of ability/cost to self-test.

The lack of transparency between the SEB decisions and the members is why there is such lack of confidence in their decisions. Between fuel and the airbag situation, its no surprise people are butt hurt about the take backs. If a clear understanding was presented before "what do you think", maybe the hit would be far less than it is today.
http://www.osgiken.net
4 STR- 2016 Mazda ND Miata
OS Giken / Bridgestone / Bride


Return to “Public Rules Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest