MSA Rule changes - another cock-up?

All,
Just received my copy of "Motorsports NOW!" for Spring 2008.
It includes the usual 'Rule Changes' article, and as usual they have slipped in a nice little earner for the FIA.

P.46 Bottom right
"Common Regs for competitors" In yellow as this is a proposed change, to be implemented 1/1/09 after ratification by the Council in June.
You can read it for yourself, but it means that most racers and hillclimbers, as well as the other disciplines, will have to have a dry-break, fuel sampling port next to their carb or injection unit. AND have the necessary coupling with hose at all times. AND have enough fuel in the tank for samples to be taken.

Same page, top left, stipulates that three, one litre samples shall be taken for analysis. So you can't run your tank less than three litres dry. This is 'immediate'.

"Road going production classes" are exempt, but I know that many race cars are not MoT compliant, so cannot argue that they are 'road going'. I've had a quick scan to find the price of an FIA approved dry break coupling, and Demon Tweeks sell them for £216.75 PLUS VAT (£255).

The MSA gives a reason for this, "Grounds of safety, to reduce risk whilst fuel samples are taken" Not that fuel samples are ever taken in many events.

It looks like the MSA has been goosed by the FIA and has gone off, again, at half cock, as it were. "Final wording to be ratified at the June Council meeting," so I suggest that as many licence holders as possible write to the MSA Council asap, to protest and ask that this be modified, so that it applies only where it is necessary.

The Chairman of the Committee of the MSA is Graham Stoker.
The Chairman of the Race committee is Robin Knight (also 750MC Sec, and a very sensible man).
The Hill Climb sub-committee chair is Simon Durling.
I suggest a copy to the Chief Exec. Colin Hilton, as well.

Quote your Licence No. to make clear you are a participating member.
Address the letters to these gentlemen at:
The Motor Sports Association
Motor Sports House
Riverside Park
Colnbrook
SL3 0HG

Hope for luck! It worked last time, over the fog lights!

John

Not before some of us bought one though!

Another letter to join the "change the 50% rule letter", anything else before I put digits to keyboard?

Excuse my ignorance - 50%??
Or was that one to Mr.Darling?

John

Excuse my ignorance - 50%??
Or was that one to Mr.Darling?

John
Sorry, it's to do with races being abandoned by CoCs if they are stopped after 50% or more is completed. More in this thread (http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106167)and others.

Hi John,

Interesting development on the dry break fuel sampling port as the instructions I have received for each event this year have stated that fuel sampling may take place. So what/who has instigated the sampling requirement and is the dry break development a reaction to this demand to ensure safety or are the two hand in hand?

Why do we need fuel tests at club level any way? Who is going to bear the cost of the analysis and what is it going to prove - we only race for tin plate cups or plastic trinkets any way!

Not sure cock up is the right wording. However I will point out that the changes that you are talking about have come from issues raised by drivers/teams.
A number of times teams have refused to supply fuel samples due to safety reasons (obviously nothing to hide) therefore this is the MSA response. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
As for the 3 litres bit that was in the blue book in 2007 so guess when they moved it around this year they missed it out. So where is the problem?

The rally people used the lack of a dry break coupling to refuse to have fuel samples taken last year on grounds of "safety". It was patently obvious that many of them were breaking the "pump fuel" rules and this was their way of trying to escape being caught.

So cheats have forced this on you all.

That's the simple position.

Regards

Jim

So where is the problem?The problem is the half a week's wages to buy that bit of kit added to the week's wages to buy a HANS device for probably 2009/10 added to the half day's wages to buy a new fog light next year added to the anything up to a week or mores wages to enter a race that we have no guarantee of running the full length.
All these little "What's the problem" scenarios are all well and good when you are forcing the ordinary man to shell out more and more money for no good reason. I've never had a fuel test in 8 years of racing and if anyone wanted to test it they could take it straight out of my jerry can before I pour it in the tank.

The problem is the half a week's wages to buy that bit of kit added to the week's wages to buy a HANS device for probably 2009/10 added to the half day's wages to buy a new fog light next year added to the anything up to a week or mores wages to enter a race that we have no guarantee of running the full length.
All these little "What's the problem" scenarios are all well and good when you are forcing the ordinary man to shell out more and more money for no good reason. I've never had a fuel test in 8 years of racing and if anyone wanted to test it they could take it straight out of my jerry can before I pour it in the tank.

Hear Hear just what i was thinking ! it just boils down to the average club racer having to bend over and take it off the MSA again.

Ian

>>>>>>>>>Same page, top left, stipulates that three, one litre samples shall be taken for analysis.

With petrol prices as they are, take enough fuel samples and the whole scrutineering team can get home for free after a race :rofl:

And if we all turn up at the first race without the sampling unit? Chuck us all out and give the paying spectators nothing to watch? Hmm, circuit owners will love giving back their admission fee...perhaps militancy has its place.

How to attract more drivers into circuit racing? Charge 'em £255 for something that will never be used. Good thinking lads!

Still, look on the bright side, looks like I can become a dry break valve stockist and earn enough money to buy my own. :D

Thank you, DaveGT6 and falcemob, I should have pointed out that at club racing level, fuel samples are NEVER taken, in my experinece at least. If it will not be used, this expensive gadget will have NO safety benefits.

IMHO, this should only apply where the championship regs provide for fuel testing.

John

Got more outraged about this as I had breakfast. Need to rant or I'll go pop.

>>>>>>A number of times teams have refused to supply fuel samples due to safety reasons (obviously nothing to hide) therefore this is the MSA response. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Talk about the MSA over-reacting more like. This is because they couldn't police their rules effectively and we're suffering for their inefficiency.

How about mandating that if a valve is not fitted, cars remain in parc ferme until it is safe to remove fuel from the system for testing? How about simply mandating that it is the responsibility of the driver to provide fuel when requested, on pain of exclusion. Both equally effective, neither cost money.

Actually, I read about the furore last year. A couple of exclusions would have cured it. Just because the MSA is too pusillanimous to enforce its own regs, we have to suffer.

Exit Max stomping away muttering angrily about being screwed again.

Um, I'd just like to point out before we all go apoplectic that the rule change relating to the dry break joint is in Secion H, Appendix 2 - in other words it is applicable to Rallying NOT Circuit Racing.

Take a deep breath and..calm.

Another issue...

Did anyone else see the red (ratified, no need for consultation as it's for safety) edit around changing the minimum lead period before the introduction of new rules? It used to be at least 6 months between rule changes being proposed and being inforced (12 months for technical rules) now it is 'normally' (or something to that effect).

This means they could potentially drop a technical rule change in in december and have it in effect for the next month - not right surely?

There was already an exception made to the above for safety before the edit - so how did this get passed as ratified without consultation FOR SAFETY?

Um, I'd just like to point out before we all go apoplectic that the rule change relating to the dry break joint is in Secion H, Appendix 2 - in other words it is applicable to Rallying NOT Circuit Racing.

Take a deep breath and..calm.

So what we are saying is that this whole thread is moaning about at item that will not effect any of the people posting and is not bringing any new rules into circuit racing. Glad at least someone has read it properly before jumping on the MSA bashing train.

Dave, get your BP up again and read the MspNOW item.

"With the exception of cars of periods A-F [1965 and before] and those competing in road-going production classes, cars competing in Rallycross, Car Racing, Special Stage Rallying, Sprints & Hill Climbs must be equipped......"


It's blanket cover, everything but drag racing, historics and very production classes, as it now reads.

As I said before, I think, we should ask that it only be implemented where the Series regs provide for fuel testing, AND where fuel testing is done. What club series does this?

John

Is there a link to this on the MSA site? I looked this morning and couldn't find anything. As my MS Now has not arrived I will wait until I read it before taking it further.

There is, falcemob, but the MSA haven't been *rs*d to get the latest copy on the site. There's only the Winter 07 edition at http://www.msauk.org/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=2622&category=797

The rule changes in the winter 07 edition are specific to rallying, is the spring 08 one different?

As I race in stock hatch our regs state that each driver must have 3 liters in the tank after the race for testing.
How ever as I'm in my second year of racing as well (doing the odd event when my bank balance allows) I've never been tested at all! :)

saw this in the newsletter...

must say I agree it's yet another total over-reaction by MSA....

in the 12 years I have been racing, *never* ever seen a fuel sample taken form *any* car, right from club stuff though to GT...

I remeber a few years back, 750 getting all holier than thou about fuel going on how they would be taking samples etc, supprise supprise, they never actually did anything of the sort... (you any idea what it costs to actually have fuel testing done? - hint, it's in the hundereds).

in the 12 years I have been racing, *never* ever seen a fuel sample taken form *any* car, right from club stuff though to GT...
Fuel testing is very common in GT's F3's BTCC ect, in fact they have there own fuel test machine at each round, it is operated by the fuel supplier. Although you wont always (probably never) see it as it happens in parc ferme (including the testing).
The problem with testing at club level is 'who will pay' the club wants a level playing field but are not normally willing to pay for the testing, competitors can protest someones fuel but as you all know you have to put the cash down (you get it back if your right as I understand). At the end of the day it is the easiest way of cheating with the lowest risk. Maybe this new requirement is a sign that fuel testing will become more common in years to come.

thank goodness both my MGs are '65 or earlier.
The other solution is to only race sur la continent where a more relaxed and sensible attitude seems to prevail.....

Dave, get your BP up again and read the MspNOW item.

"With the exception of cars of periods A-F [1965 and before] and those competing in road-going production classes, cars competing in Rallycross, Car Racing, Special Stage Rallying, Sprints & Hill Climbs must be equipped......"


John

Oh b****r you're right, I didn't read it properly! Ah well that's another good reason to buy that nice FiA car I have my eye on!:rofl:

Why is it dangerous to take a sample from the tank, dont get that, or just uncouple it at the carb and pump a bit out. Maybe instead of this silly expensive rule just get us to agree to give a sample if and when asked on pain of disqualification and then its our problem how we do it if the team think extra equipment is required then fit it, personally it would take me about two minutes to supply a sample.

, personally it would take me about two minutes to supply a sample.

Takes me a bit longer:old:

On a more serious note, on just about any modern car it isn't easy to get fuel (especially 3 litres) out at the injecting point without a suitable outlet of some description. As for taking fuel out of the tank, It isn't unknown for people to run hidden tanks, especially in this fuel rip off age on road vehicles.
That's why the ministry fuel testers don't take samples from the "tanks" on roadside test and now normaly take it from the pump.

Some hillclimb cars only run with a two-litre tank (some times less) with the owners only bringing enough fuel for the meeting.
So a possible scenario is,
Return from a run with 0.5litres in tank,
Asked for 3x1 litre samples
Fill tank with fuel from the cans and empty again from sample valve.
Refill fuel tank and take another litre.

As it has been said before, why don’t they take it from the cans and during paddock refuelling, as it’s a lot easier than above?

Plus I can only just afford pump fuel (V-power) than any thing with a little more go in it.

Just had aquick read of the fuel qaunitys to be taken, and it basicly says that if less than 3litres are avaliable two equal amounts will be taken.
So it seems that it could be possible only two 0.25 litre samples may be taken in the above scenario??

Takes me a bit longer:old:



:rofl: :rofl: .Now you all can see that it makes sense to have a pre-65 car.
This does smack of not really being thought out.The BTCC and WRC you can understand but club level?
Oh well,the money I've saved by not needing a dry break will at least mean a free entry.:laugh:

Why on earth do they need 3 litres? My point Gordon is that fair enough if you have a problem drawing of the required amount but if you are running a carb engine and do not have a problem why should you have to fit this device surely they can be a bit more flexible and word it something like 'It must be possible to draw 3 litres of fuel from the vehicle whist in Parc Ferme' and leave it up to us.

My problem would be that I normaly run out of fuel on the last lap and go back to the paddock on fumes so what happens then?

I have spoke with club racers that are running very high compressions and special fuels and they have openly admitted it so i think there is some need for crack down.

The way i understood the 3 litre minimum rule was that it was to try and stop people running to fumes and potentially having to stop out on circuit - causing problems & delays to race scheduling. Surely it would have to be a pretty inept chemist to require 3 litres of sample to determine what the composition was when they can drug-test athletes with just a cupful of wee and identify the DNA of criminal suspects from just a single strand of hair or spot of blood!

10 races on a meeting -10 race winners giving 3 ltrs each=30 ltrs free fuel to get home on the plus side if its "ROCKET FUEL" the happy chemist gets home quicker simple init.....;) :rofl:

Surely this should be a regulation for individual championships to chose (or not) rather than a catch all for every championship?

Just to ease the pain slightly and if the OP is correct that we will all need this, I have just seen a quick release connector for around £30 for 3/8, page 58 here (http://www.thinkauto.com/plist010106gweb.pdf) FD56 series. You then need an adapter to connect these to your fuel pipe which I would think will be under a fiver each.
Looking at the price of them I may get one anyway as I am fed up with petrol spraying everywhere when I have to disconnect my carbs for whatever reasons.

Is undoing the union to the carbs and turning the fuel pump on not good enough nowadays?

I'm on an unbelievable tight budget. I bought my race car, overalls and helmet etc all for under £2000. The cost of entering a race meeting with all consumables AND assuming no damage is all my months (one pay packets) disposable income after lifes other expenses. I simply can't afford to keep buying stuff. I haven't managed to get out this year yet through having to buy bits and pieces, the most expensive being a transponder which I still haven't got.

In short, the more I have to buy the more it puts me off.

Makes me laugh how I am allowed to jump out of an aircraft but people can't take fuel samples without a dry break because its considered a little bit dangerous. Big girls

They are pretty good and, asyou say, useful anyway.

Just to ease the pain slightly.... £30 for 3/8, page 58 here (http://www.thinkauto.com/plist010106gweb.pdf) FD56 series....

Thanks, that does ease the pain

In Monoposto we run standard road engines (no tuning at all, other than ligher flywheel, dry sumping, and changing to carbs. Oh, and we can change big end bolts). There is no advantage running expensive fuel - we use Vpower as it comes, and will never ever have a problem with knocking.

The races are short, so it's a big extra percentage of fuel to carry around.

With a silly extra cost of converting to carbs (this is to keep costs down, as it's much more expensive to run the standard injection than to buy carbs, fit them, set them up, rolling road them etc) we don't really want to have to spend that much money on something that will never be used and isn't really any safer than borrowing one of our Jerry Cans.

However, a solution for club racers (do not do this if you have more than 1% chance of being sampled): Make a little fake valve on a lathe that will pass scrutineering, but that won't provide fuel. It'll need to be quite realistic, but doesn't need to work. If you then get sampled just say it must be broken after 7 years of not being used, and offer to disconnect a fuel hose as you would anyway.

Win win - cheap, light, and just as effective :D

However, a solution for club racers (do not do this if you have more than 1% chance of being sampled): Make a little fake valve on a lathe that will pass scrutineering, but that won't provide fuel. It'll need to be quite realistic, but doesn't need to work. If you then get sampled just say it must be broken after 7 years of not being used, and offer to disconnect a fuel hose as you would anyway.

Win win - cheap, light, and just as effective :DExcept most of us don't have lathes or the skills to produce an authentic looking valve. So I could go to an engineering company and get them to turn one up for me, Oh I forgot the last engineering company I used charged aroud £90 PH and it would probably cost an hour's labour to set a lathe up and do a bit of machining.
Think I'll buy one if I need it. :cool:

I remeber a few years back, 750 getting all holier than thou about fuel going on how they would be taking samples etc, supprise supprise, they never actually did anything of the sort... (you any idea what it costs to actually have fuel testing done? - hint, it's in the hundereds).

They still were last year......never did fuel tests though AFAIK.

I've had a quick scan to find the price of an FIA approved dry break coupling, and Demon Tweeks sell them for £216.75 PLUS VAT (£255).



Is fuel sampling valve ref FBM3083, @ £9.95 on p188 of the GPR catalogue not sufficent...?

Is undoing the union to the carbs and turning the fuel pump on not good enough nowadays?
My point intirely.
Just to ease the pain slightly and if the OP is correct that we will all need this, I have just seen a quick release connector for around £30 for 3/8, page 58 here FD56 series. You then need an adapter to connect these to your fuel pipe which I would think will be under a fiver each.But is it FIA/MSA approved because that will be the next thing.:rofl:

Seriously £30 and a bit of work I am happy enough with but lets make sure these will satisfy requirements before rushing in. I thought Think Automotive would have a cost effective answer somewhere in their catalogue.

Someone told me last year he was running 13.1 compression in a Capri and was running fuel that cost him £2.60 a litre a year ago!

Is fuel sampling valve ref FBM3083, @ £9.95 on p188 of the GPR catalogue not sufficent...?
FBM3083 is just one half of the valve, asuming you are thinking of teeing off your fuel line to this you need the female section FM3082 to go with it if you are going to comply fully with the rools. This does look awfuly like the one I posted above.
Edited; Sorry it's the FD90 series below the one I posted.

All those dry couplings in the Think Automotive catalogue are primarily for gauge/brake/clutch lines. In my experience this sort of connector have pretty big connection sizes, but the actual flow area inside the coupling when its connected is quite small (ie the size of a brake hose or less). They would be ok as a sampling valve if teed off the side of the fuel line, but I think they'd be too restrictive to be used as an in-line connection.

Just to ease the pain slightly and if the OP is correct that we will all need this, I have just seen a quick release connector for around £30 for 3/8, page 58 here (http://www.thinkauto.com/plist010106gweb.pdf) FD56 series. You then need an adapter to connect these to your fuel pipe which I would think will be under a fiver each.
Looking at the price of them I may get one anyway as I am fed up with petrol spraying everywhere when I have to disconnect my carbs for whatever reasons.

That would be great, falcemob, but like fog light that was £10 without and £40+ with FIA approval, I see nowhere on that page that says the Think-Auto connector is FIA approved.

Everyone, the three litre. two litre or 3x100mls minimum fuel sample is irrelevant - we can adjust our use of fuel to ensure some is left (I hear the comment about sprints). WHat we should object to is expence where the expensive device will never be used.
Write to your MSA Councillor NOW!

John

John, I hadn't noticed the FIA wording, I guess John Minshaw must have contacts at the MSA then. ;)

Except most of us don't have lathes or the skills to produce an authentic looking valve. So I could go to an engineering company and get them to turn one up for me, Oh I forgot the last engineering company I used charged aroud £90 PH and it would probably cost an hour's labour to set a lathe up and do a bit of machining.
Think I'll buy one if I need it. :cool:

If/When I make one for myself, I'll make one for you for free. But only you - I'm not spending all my time making free fake fuel sampling valves!!

Or I could make up a little CAD design and send it to people for free. Then they can give it to their local CAD Machinists who could make it in seconds for virtually nothing (in theory).

The Think ones aren't FIA approved are they? If they are they make no mention of it, and the regulation states FIA approval is required. Either way I'll be writing to the MSA to voice my displeasure. Everyone should spend a few minutes writing a letter and the cost of a stamp to let them know we disapprove. And we need an e-Petition as well.

. . . .
Makes me laugh how I am allowed to jump out of an aircraft but people can't take fuel samples without a dry break because its considered a little bit dangerous. Big girlsI agree with a lot of what you say. Great pity then that it was competitors who made sufficient H&S fuss over this nonsense to get fuel testing that year knocked on the head. Just stand at any stage start and some of the fumes could have been bottled and sold, never mind what was in the tank.:laugh:

Other competitors brought this on you.

Regards

Jim

Other competitors brought this on you.

Regards

JimThat's a typical headmaster attitude, should we all stay back for detention in the paddock. :laugh:

Why does everything have to have this FIA approval, if they want 3 litres of fuel and it can be given what difference does it make having FIA approval it either works or it don't and if it dont then disqualify the driver, its not safety equipment so at this rate everything on the car will have to have FIA approval including the car itself. I would rather be forced to buy HANS than this at least I can see the argument for HANS.

That's a typical headmaster attitude, should we all stay back for detention in the paddock. :laugh:Difficult to see how a statement (intended to be factual) can be an attitude. However, if you accept you've been a naughty boy. . . (:p )

Jim

Jim, its not a statement of fact. If the MSA feels that it can only deal with a tiny minority by imposing a blanket measure of mandating very expensive equipment onto the MASSIVE majority of totally innocent competitors then its the wrong solution... no matter what the cause.

>>>>>>>>>Same page, top left, stipulates that three, one litre samples shall be taken for analysis.

With petrol prices as they are, take enough fuel samples and the whole scrutineering team can get home for free after a race :rofl: :D:rofl:

:rofl: Demon Tweeks have ran out of 20 litre cans as the scrutineers have bought them all :cool:

as a matter of interest, how does a scrute know the break valve is FIA approved - it's not like there will be a label or sticker showing, they are too small surely?

as a matter of interest, how does a scrute know the break valve is FIA approved - it's not like there will be a label or sticker showing, they are too small surely?



They will all be fully trained and know exactly what they are looking for,surely:cool:

We had to fit a dry break connection last year for Sport Maxx; BARC sent details of coupling required and a contact for Think Auto. Items cost £30 or so.

FIA approved? I'll have to dig out the invoice.

Shall i place club motorsport in the tributes section?

The way its going it will not be around much longer.

Other competitors brought this on you.


Jim, its not a statement of fact. If the MSA feels that it can only deal with a tiny minority by imposing a blanket measure of mandating very expensive equipment onto the MASSIVE majority of totally innocent competitors then its the wrong solution... no matter what the cause.Well it was intended to be my view of the facts. It was not intended to suggest that the MSA was right in taking this action (instead of perhaps suspending all the competitors involved?), merely that this was the reason they had taken this action.

Of course for certain formulae/classes it will lead to disproportionate expense (£30?) since protests on fuel grounds are so rare.

Regards

Jim

If it is just £30 then I have no problem with that especially it it stops some fellow cometitors using 13.1 compressions mandating a very high octane expensive and illegal fuel mix, BTW the guys engine builder (a well know name) told him he had to run this fuel, its when its a silly £300 with vat and delivery from DT's I am not happy with.

Jim, understood. Apologies if my response was typical of a driver only seeing the worst case scenario, but as a member of the MSA its not too difficult to understand why.

If this 'problem' is solved by a £30 item, then I agree it has much less negative impact. But its the single minded philosophy of using a £notes sticking plaster to fix a tiny leak that I find frustrating.

If this 'problem' is solved by a £30 item, then I agree it has much less negative impact. But its the single minded philosophy of using a £notes sticking plaster to fix a tiny leak that I find frustrating.Just read my copy and I note the wording of the new rule: "...must be equipped with a dry break fuel sampling coupling, approved by the FIA..." and "...competitors to carry and make available the mating part of the coupling..." (my italics). So it's only a £30 fix if that buys you both halfs of the coupling and they're FIA approved.

All,
But IS there an FIA approved valve at only £30?

No one has found one yet!
Only cheap vaklves without the "FIA sticker".

John

Exactly. I know I can buy half a valve at £30 (and the other half at another £30 I suppose), but will that be enough? Does anyone have a list of FIA approved valves and distributors?

Try trolling through this (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/1C155AE9984DB26AC1257402005B7A2E/$FILE/LT%2005-Prise%20carb.pdf?Openelement)

Looks like the £30 one is OK but as dtype says you will need to tee off from the main pipe.

Try trolling through this (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/1C155AE9984DB26AC1257402005B7A2E/$FILE/LT%2005-Prise%20carb.pdf?Openelement) .........e.

I did troll through it, and it's all a storm in a teacup, the document states it has to be installed between the filter and the injectors; ergo if you don't have injectors you don't need to fit it :laugh:

Motorsport Now regs state; within 300mm of injection unit or carburettor(s)
Think I'll mount one down by the gearbox and fix it to the bottom chassis rail out of harms way.

Motorsport Now regs state; within 300mm of injection unit or carburettor(s)
Think I'll mount one down by the gearbox and fix it to the bottom chassis rail out of harms way.
That's a bit silly Tim it would be difficult to use !:Shrug: :Shrug:

That's a bit silly Tim it would be difficult to use !:Shrug: :Shrug:



:rofl: :rofl:

Jim, understood. ...

If this 'problem' is solved by a £30 item, then I agree it has much less negative impact. But its the single minded philosophy of using a £notes sticking plaster to fix a tiny leak that I find frustrating.

It's a knee-jerk reaction isn't it? Why not simply apply the existing rules without fear or favour and state that all cars remain in parc ferme conditions until the fuel sample has been given? I know that if I were asked to give fuel as I approached the collecting area I'd have the screwdrivers out in a flash. Bet the rally teams at the heart of the problem would, too. :rofl:

...I'd have the screwdrivers out in a flash.
I guess that 's the concern at the heart of this :)

That's a bit silly Tim it would be difficult to use !:Shrug: :Shrug:
Exactly, and I wont be using it, someone who wants a sample will be.:p

30cm away from the carbs? would you need to install it directly under the drivers footwell









http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/images/icons/icon25.gif

Exactly, and I wont be using it, someone who wants a sample will be.:pDon't forget that you're the one that is supposed to be carrying the mating coupling with a minimum of 300mm of hose attached.

The official would probably just ask you to connect your coupling up and bung the other end in their recepticle. If you can't do that then they might require you to stay in parc ferme until you can....

Oh.. hang on.. did I suggest that an official might actually want a fuel sample from you.

:rofl:

Silly me!

Why don't they specify a standardised m or f coupling for us all and the official just has to have the mating end with as much hose as he wants?

Don't forget that you're the one that is supposed to be carrying the mating coupling with a minimum of 300mm of hose attached.

The official would probably just ask you to connect your coupling up and bung the other end in their recepticle. If you can't do that then they might require you to stay in parc ferme until you can....

Oh.. hang on.. did I suggest that an official might actually want a fuel sample from you.

:rofl:

Silly me!I thought you said that bit was in your motorhome, I'll just wander down and get it. Don't forget we'll have extra time as we don't often get a complete race due to time constraints ;)

Guys surely this is the point at which you go to your class reps and have them get onto the MSA to try to have this stupid idea stopped. If as you all say no-one has ever / rarely been tested at club level then the whole thing is a waste of time and money.
I know it's only £30 but all these things add up. Only £30 + time to fit (say another hour for which of my work time = £90) means around £120 or so in real life. At some point you guys will have to stand up for yourselves!

All,
You have grabbed onto this "£30" quote, but I can't see where that comes from, except someone saying 'if it were only £30' . IF!

I've just phoned around the UK companies listed on the FIA page that deals with the fuel sampling connectors: http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/1C155AE9984DB26AC1257402005B7A2E/$FILE/LT%2005-Prise%20carb.pdf?Openelement .

The results are listed below:

Goodridge: £251 +VAT for a -12 connector, the only one they could assure me was FIA approved.

Raceparts UK: A Staubli "QDSP-06DVF/M" pair, without hoses: £85.78 + VAT

Flexible Hose Supplies (Motorsport) They supply a fuel sampling kit to GpN rally teams, but the Staubli connector from that costs £175.

No one answered the phone at Think Automotive.

I've written my own letter to Graham Stoker, copied to Robin Knight, and have asked my club to do likewise. Podd37 is right - collective action by letter writing from grass roots motorsport is needed or many new enetrats will go and do something cheaper.

John

PS I don't know why the link to the FIA page is not a hotlink, but that's the URL. Copy and paste into the address box in yoyur web searcher and it should find it. J.

John, I got the £30 bit from one of the other connectors on Think Auto's site. If you look at the FIA approved one it's £26.04 for the female bit and £8 for the male connector in 1/4 so that's £34, then you will need a tee, some extra pipe and some more fittings to connect the connector to the pipe that tees off the main fuel line. Oh and then VAT. Oh and postage and maybe some of you will need to pay labour charges to have them fitted.
That is the cheaper end but if you want the bling of anodised ally from Goodridge you can pay even sillier money.

Why don't they specify a standardised m or f coupling for us all and the official just has to have the mating end with as much hose as he wants?


Using one's own fuel coupling/mating hose should not give rise to competitor accusations of contamination of a sample due to the equipment being used on another car.

Fair point Gary. Have to think of another excuse then :)
Lent it to a man in a pub?

John, I got the £30 bit from one of the other connectors on Think Auto's site. If you look at the FIA approved one it's £26.04 for the female bit and £8 for the male connector in 1/4 so that's £34, then you will need a tee, some extra pipe and some more fittings to connect the connector to the pipe that tees off the main fuel line. Oh and then VAT. Oh and postage and maybe some of you will need to pay labour charges to have them fitted.

Thanks, falcemob!

For completeness, the Think Auto page with the couplings is:
http://www.thinkauto.com/acatalog/On_line_shop_FD90__FCM3080__series_271.html
The FIA page with the list of approved couplings is:
http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/1C155AE9984DB26AC1257402005B7A2E/$FILE/LT%2005-Prise%20carb.pdf?Openelement

But as you say, this is not just about finding a suitbale coupling at a reasonable price. I'll not retract my letter to the MSA Chairman!

John

I'll be seeing Robin Knight at the weekend, so will see if he has view.

might be better to sound out Keith Messer

Fuel testing is very common in GT's F3's BTCC ect, in fact they have there own fuel test machine at each round, it is operated by the fuel supplier. Although you wont always (probably never) see it as it happens in parc ferme (including the testing).
can't speak for BTCC, but (brit) F3 and GT that certianly never happened.

Petrochem Carless do not have test equipment at the track.

bit easier for them, they are the mandated fuel supplier, they deliver the fuel to you at the weekend, so unless you manage to 'loose' the fuel you got from them and substitute some rocket fuel (in an open paddock) it's going to be quite hard, I guess you could start adding addatives etc, but considering the mandated fuel is already decent stuff (as in way over pump spec's) why would anybody bother? (and let's also not forget that GT3 cars ECU mappings are homologated along with everything else...)

I am sure people do take the **** with fuel, hoever, this is far from widespread as most of us CBA to pay silly money for these fuels...

Last point, you always know who is running non-pump fuel, just use your nose, you can smell race fuel a mile off.

Then you have championships which do not enforce the pump fuel rule because many of the cars that run in their series are ex-exotica which need rocket jollop for engine reliability. They're happy with the status quo and it carries on.

However, there was a spot of shouting from this end when we had a set of regs drafted which said NO ADDITIVES WHAT SO EVER, even though the blue book permits lead replacement additives (like Millers CVL).

And as for the FIA dry break couplings #12!!!!! Eh? What's that for a tractor puller with three Allinson V12 aero engines? Blimey, that's hosepipe!!

I use #8 for the lines on my Belmont, and the lines on the ASCAR are #8 which is plenty big enough!

If you have the coupling on your car, does it have FIA stamped on it? No. If it's a sticker - is it fuel proof (I bet not), so who says they CAN check?

You need a quality fuel dry break quick connector, with a female + a length of hose to dribble it into the scrutes Bentley, or 20L jerry can.

The sample may still only be in the realms of 250ml (or less), but to ensure that the pump picks up, you need about 3L in a normal (non-sprint/hillclimb) fuel tank, which is how I would read it.

I'm tempted to fit one anyway, as it'll make draining the tank easier.

But do I put a male on the line, and then run a female on the injector rail, so I can meet the regs, and make it cleaner to remove the fuel line from the engine.

I believe there are some hidden problems with the actual procedures involved in taking fuel samples.

a) the people doing the sampling require suitable training in the handling and storage of volatile liquids

b) the landowner must give consent for handling of such liquids to be carried out

c) risk assessment must be carried out

d) insurance premiums would have to be raised to cover mishaps whilst taking and handling the fuel samples

I'm sure there are more... what does HSE and COSHH say about such things ?

That's pretty ridiculous, particuarly b). What kind of an age do we live in, the Litigation Age?

You say that Chris but I remember years ago when I used to trade at car auctions, it was strictly forbidden to handle fuel in the auction hall, if you had a problem you had to get one of the staff to do it for you and that was 15 years ago.

That's a little different, because it's indoors. I just find it a bit daft that those sorts of regulations are dreamt up for an outdoor event, while Joe Bloggs racer further up the paddock is decanting from a jerrry can into his fuel tank, with no such risk assessments, explicit permissions or even special training.

It's just legal arse-covering, and it's getting worse and worse every day. Soon I won't be able to fart in a race paddock without signed permission from MSV, a waiver from the scrutineers, and training on when to do it and where.

Makes me sick. I'd probably need permission for that too - volatile liquids no doubt.

I believe there are some hidden problems with the actual procedures involved in taking fuel samples.

a) the people doing the sampling require suitable training in the handling and storage of volatile liquids

b) the landowner must give consent for handling of such liquids to be carried out

c) risk assessment must be carried out

d) insurance premiums would have to be raised to cover mishaps whilst taking and handling the fuel samples

I'm sure there are more... what does HSE and COSHH say about such things ?

Were is the problem
a) I dont need to have special training to go to get fuel from my local garage do I?

b) Can you state your source of that information, however most circuits have a petrol station on them (even Mallory).

c) Risk assessments must have been carried out, thats why they have introduced this new rule for. And the MSA has a whole department dedecated to risk assessment/management.

d) The insurance is based on the blue book (Which is why so many 'safety' changes happern without consultation, so the insurance will be well aware of this already

Nice scare mongering though!!!!

My slant was more towards the rallying scene (which is just as applicable) which has far less facilities than those found at permanent race circuits.

All,
A reply from the MSA. You see - lobbying does work, where petitions don't.
It should help most older cars, but not me!

I have replied to say that the regs provide for fuel testing, but do not mandate it. And to ask why series that do not use fuel testing should be compelled to fit sampling ports?

I know some others have put their points to the MSA. Here's an opportunioty to write to the man who seems to be in charge of this project, so get your pens out!
John

MOTOR SPORTS ASSOCIATION L UNITED KINGDOM
Our Ref: JAS /jas/13526
23 May 2008
Dr J R Davies Albert House Haverbreaks Lancaster LA1 SBN
Dear Dr Davies
Re: Fuel Sampling
Thank you for your recent letter which I have discussed with Robin Knight of the 750MC.
Robin is, I understand, to publicise details of where the appropriate dry break couplings can be obtained at a cost of less than £100. Quite where the quoted by a number of persons cost of £250 comes from I am not sure for our research cannot find a coupling of such cost.
Since publicity in Motor Sports Now the regulation has been slightly amended in that dr~breaks are only required on fuel injected cars. The exclusion for road going production cars competing in road going classes remains. This exclusion was primarily made to accommodate the sprint or hill climb competitor running in the appropriate class.
Whilst in some areas there has been little routine fuel testing there are an increasing number of championships, at all levels, running control fuel. Part of the condition of running control fuel is that there is testing at each and every round. The regulations have provided for fuel testing for many years and apart from routine tests there is always the possibility of fuel being protested, hence the need to make provision for the easy drawing of fuel samples.
We trust the above information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
For Motor Sports Association
JOHN SYMES
Technical & Risk Control Manager
cc Robin Knight, 750MC
THE ROYAL AUTOMOBILE CLUB MOTOR SPORTS ASSOCIATION LIMITED
M0TOR SPORTS HOUSE, RIVERSIDE PARK, COLNBROOK SL3 OHG, ENGLAND TEL I Ol75 3-6 5000 FAX tEL: 0175 376 5000 FAX 0175 368 2938 WEB www.msauk.org REGISTERED OFFICE AS ABOVE REGISTERED NUMBER 13448929 ENGLAND

Since publicity in Motor Sports Now the regulation has been slightly amended in that dry breaks are only required on fuel injected cars

So beside the obvious, what is the differance between the combustion of the fuel in a carb'd engine than a injected engine, in my book none/very little.
So why the exclusion of carb'd engine from having a dry break, is it just that it may be easier to use the electric pump on injected cars? Oops some carb'd vehicles have electric pumps?? or is it due to accessibilty and fuel pressure.
I think we will all have to wait until November/ December to hear about the final wording/ruling on this one. :relax:

Presumably due to the high pressure (70 psi ??)that fuel is fed to the injection fuel rail as opposed to the 3-5 psi in a carb?

I would have thought as we have been saying its a peice of cake to slip a hose off the carb and pump some gas into a can with a 5psi (average) fuel pump required to run a carb system. Try that with an injection pump system it would be quite a different matter. I think the ruling makes very good sense now.

Maybe - if your series uises a control fuel or ever samples fuel.
If they don't it's a waste of £100.
John

Thank you JohnD you've scored a hit for us carburettered masses. Well done!

Max

Thank you JohnD you've scored a hit for us carburettered masses. Well done!

Max

Indeed, well done John - although ironically I think he runs on fuel injection!:(

Indeed, and if massive demand will bring down the price, maybe I'll fit one anyway. It would be a good way to check the fuel pressure (critical on Lucas Pi) from time to time.

JOhn

All,
Even better! I have another letter from the MSA:

Dear John,
Re: Fuel sampling valves
Thank you for your letter of the 3rd June concerning the above.

Please be aware that the proposal has again been modified by the Motor Sports Council such that the requirement is only applicable to British and MSA Championships.

YS
For the MSA
John Symes
Technical & Risk Control Manager

A small victory for common sense!

John

Sensible and good news.

Well done JohnD.

Well done John but aren't MSA championships the championships we all run in?

You may indeed be running in a MSA or British Championship but here is the complete list ... these are championship run by the MSA I believe.

http://www.msauk.org/site/wbs/news/ListNewsView.asp?NewsOwner=msa7&chapter=313

Essentially it will have 'MSA' or 'British' in the championship name.... most of us here are 'club' racers an so need not worry anymore. :)

Hurrah!

Having said that, I may well fit a cheaper quick-release nipple for draining fuel, checking fuel pressure and that sort of thing. But it won't be as expensive as the FIA approved ones.

You may indeed be running in a MSA or British Championship but here is the complete list ... these are championship run by the MSA I believe.

http://www.msauk.org/site/wbs/news/ListNewsView.asp?NewsOwner=msa7&chapter=313

Essentially it will have 'MSA' or 'British' in the championship name.... most of us here are 'club' racers an so need not worry anymore. :)That's OK then, I thought most championships went under the MSA banner but I got it the wrong way round.:)

Although I am like most of you guys here and abhor the claustrophobic domination of the MSA and organising clubs, I have to say that we fitted some dry break couplings on tees to a couple of cars a few years ago and found them so useful that we would never be without the facility now. The first thing we did when we brought a pair of FR2000's was to find a spare female end to the standard dry breaks they have fitted to allow us to use it for draining tanks.
In truth all the MSA had to write in the rule was that " all competitors must be capable of safely draing a 3 litre fuel sample from their car in parc ferme" That woul;d have done nicely.

Bob, all,
I too plan to fit one, if only to make testing the fuel pressure an easier job - at present I have to insert a threaded connection T to the fuel line. But like tristan it won't be a £250 jobbie with a FIA sticker on it - I have the choice, and I'm happy with that.

It doesn't look well on the MSA that it's doing these U-tunrs, is it? You would think they would learn.

John

It doesn't look well on the MSA that it's doing these U-turns, is it? You would think they would learn.

JohnAt least they are doing the U turns which means they are listening.

Yeah dont knock them for listening to racers opinions and acting on it I think its a positive reaction to be applauded. As for fuel pressure testing I just leave one (guage) permanently plumbed in as they are not that expensive unless they are the fancy ones you fit in the car with a sender.

That's it, Al. Mines a converted oil pressure gauge on the end of a long peice of Aeroquip. I really don't fancy there being a fuel filled pipe at 100psi with me in the cockpit while racing, but it's useful for testing on road runs.

John

I have it poked under the bonnet and can just see it from the cockpit when its reading where it should, very useful guage as it happens especially if you have a fault like missing at top end or bogging and not sure whether its electrical or fuel problems.