I recently submitted the following proposal to the SEB:
I am submitting a proposal for Section 15.10.G of the Street Prepared rules set which now simple says “Intake water injection systems are allowed”. I understand the rule as it now stands to require straight water in the injection system and that it disallows any water/methanol mixture. That mixture is the recommended fluid in aftermarket water injection kits. This proposal requests that a water/methanol mixture be permitted by this section of the rules. It might be worded thus, “ Intake water injection systems are allowed. The fluid injected may be a water/methanol mixture not to exceed 50% methanol.” Following are some points to consider that are about the benefits of this change to all Street Prepared competitors and the basis for this rule change and its details:
1. Inexpensive high tech intake water/methanol injection kits have become available, are widely promoted in the high performance aftermarket, and are a less expensive and simple bolt-on alternative to the more complex E85 conversions which have evolved as being permitted by the Street Prepared rule set. A search on the internet finds at least 6 manufacturers of intake water/methanol injection systems with a multiplicity of models, features and accessories.
2. For a vehicle converted to E85, adding more alcohol through an intake water/methanol injection system is likely not to be beneficial thus contributing to parity with a gasoline fueled vehicle equipped with intake water/methanol injection.
3. Allowing methanol in the injected fluid would also act as an anti-freeze, reducing the seasonal maintenance requirement for competitors in northern climates.
4. The 50% methanol limitation requirement suggested is the industry standard for water/methanol mixtures that are not flammable.
5. A premixed 49% methanol/51% water “Boost Juice” fluid is now readily available making it easy and safe for the SCCA Street Prepared competitor to use. DevilsOwn Water Injection Company also has "DevilsOwn Brew" on the market.
Other alcohols are suitable for mixing with water in this application and could be incorporated in the rules, however from my research, methanol appears to be the optimum and preferred recommendation by the kit manufacturers.
I hope you guys find this acceptable. Your volunteer service to the membership is appreciated in these matters. Please feel free to contact me for further information or comment.
The following response to the proposal was recently published in Fastrack:
#13455 Water Injection Allowance Proposal
The SPAC does not feel that this allowance is in the spirit of the category
Being new to SP and in the process of preparing my first car for the category, I am unfamiliar with what the "spirit of the category" (SOC) is. I inquired of the SCCA and found that it is not specifically written down but more of a consensus in the minds of the SP competitors as to what is appropriate for the category. I have noted that the SP rules have been refined to reflect development of equipment as technology has moved forward and that is the spirit of my proposal. I did a little research and found that GM used a 50/50 water/methanol injection with the tank and equipment under the hood 50 years ago on the turbocharged Olds F-85 Jetfire, so its not new tech, but the availability of quality aftermarket kits is relatively new. I doubt anybody with a kit on their street car, at least in my climate, would ever run without methanol mixed in their system, so this is not an obscure modification disregarded or unavailable to the common enthusiast, but we disallow it in SP.
Possibly it is a safety issue to the SPAC, which is understandable, but without specifics from them, there seems to be no more or less exposure to safety issues on the car than from any possible failures due to modifications allowed to a SP fuel system. For my personal situation, I much prefer the safety of taking a gallon of Boost Juice to an event and buying 91 Octane locally at that event versus having to safely transport ten times as much C16 race gas there, which is my expensive alternative.
So I hope to hear discussion on this. If the SOC amongst the membership finds this a crackpot suggestion, so be it and I will let it go. If you think it has merit, please send your letters to the SEB supporting it or adding further comment.