[QUOTE]Originally posted by racinglawyer:In general, I like it. I don't think we need a price limit, since this will eliminate the $20-40/gal 'boutique' fuels that really cost the big money. However, I disagree with:
April 2005 concerning the 2005 RUNOFFS sec. 9.12 reads as follows.
"All cars shall use fuel purchased from the track as follows:
Competitiors must declare which fuel they are using. Mixing of fuel types is prohibited.
These fuels must be purchased from the track, and will be tested in accordance with the Official RUNOFFS Fuel testing Procedure. A copy of this procedure will be available in impound."
How do you feel about this?
All SRF, rotary engine cars, SSB, SSC, FSCCA and SRACCA cars shall use Sunoco/CAM2 93 Octane Unleaded.
All T1 and T 2 cars, rotary engine cars, as well as the GT 2 Porsche Cup car and the EP Lotus/Caterham 7 American shall use either Sunoco/Cam2 93 Octane unleaded or Sunoco/CAM2 100 Octane Unleaded. Competitors must declare which fuel they are using and mixing of fuel types is prohibited.
All remaining Production, GT, Formula cars and Sports Racers shall use either the Sunoco/CAM2 110 or 112 Leaded. Competitiors must declare which fuel they are using. Mixing of fuel types is prohibited.
If we have to buy it from the track and we have to declare which fuel we're running, what is the point in forcing us to run fuels that aren't suited for our cars? FV, FF, F500 are really best suited to use the 93 or 100 unleaded. Why should we have to run the 110 leaded? What's wrong with 93 unleaded for ANY class that wants to run it? If we already have a test spec for it, then why not let any competitor run any of the approved fuels?
I strongly agree with the move towards standardized or approved fuels. If we're doing this, however, we should take the opportunity to unload the baggage from the 'old' fuel rules we've been running under that are counterproductive.