2004 World and European Class 3 Champs

[jw.]

A wee question. Cookee, were you using local pumped fuel?

[Cookee]

Yes we were - had a problem before the start for the first race, changed the powerhead and went out and got third place in the second race, so the fuel was ok for us!

[Adam]

Hopefully the UIM / RYA will give some guidance on the fuel issue - or am I just being un-realistic?

[jw.]

So they're claiming poor local fuel which works fine for others and they're running 100's instead of 90's. Sounds a bit fishy to me. A touch of alcohol perhaps?

[Cookee]

The fuel is actually called Aspen and is allegedly used in Sweden specifically for 2 strokes in comercial applications, we were offered the use of it when we got there but declined along with the Italians and protested its use.

I think someone brought some back to analize it but I don't have access to the results so I couldn't tell you. The fuel is commercially available but only in 20 litre barrels by special order in Norway.

The problem I foresee is that the fuel is more readily available in Sweden, and the regulations are not as specific as they might be regarding fuel - I can't remember the words exactly but they say something like readily available pump fuel, si if there is a pump selling the stuff in Sweden it might make it legal.

I would like to stress that at no time were the Scandinavian teams or organisors hiding any of this and it was all out in the open. The protests were all made and I believe taken in good nature and we shared many beers with the local guys who were very hospitable and I would love to return one day.

[Cat]

Why is it assumed that running higher octane fuel would improve your performance, all things being equal IE no changes to the engine or ignition settings, running the higher octane would most likely reduce performance due to the slower burn.

[Cookee]

Like you said all things being equal! The only problem I have is that firstly - the fuel was illegal - and secondly - what if things wern't equal? The local organisers refused to run pump fuel saying that it wasn't good enough despite protests from 2 other nations and a request from the UIM!

And lastly why would you think they were all running 100 jets in a standard XR2 and one of the cats ran 94mph (allegedly) in the fjiord?

[lindeman]

You still don't get it Cookee - the Aspen fuel we are running is actually burning slower, and my engine would have performed better with regular pump fuel. I would still have used the same jets (98), in the temperature we had in Tvedestrand. Our experience is that the fuel we are currently using in Norway is not good enough for engines with a compression factor of more than 10, at least that's what the fuel companies are telling us. After the big change in the fuel specs in 1998, we've wrecked more XR2s (even none-blueprintet ones) than ever before - until we started running on Aspen Plus (99/93 octan)

Btw; I was running in excess of 94 mph in the fjord.

-Morten-

[Cookee]

Hi Morten -

Sorry the "alegedly" comment was not addressed to you - it was a joke about another thread with boats for sale claiming impossible top speeds!

Apart from the Swedish teams (not the Optimax ones!) none of the other competitors were running the fuel and as far as I am aware I was the only one with a problem - and that was down to something else (I think!).

I actually believe what you are saying - although if I ran an XR2 on 98 jets I would be followed around by a big cloud of smoke so I don't understand that bit - the only real problem I have with all of this saga is if it is an International race and the local fuel is so bad why not get permission from the UIM to run Aspen?
And why should 2 countries be allowed to run a different fuel to the rest of the world - the issue is not whether it is better or not it is whether it is fair or not.

We only have your word (and I believe you are a fair and honourable man) the there is no performance advantage, but what happens when we go to Sweden or some other country and they have fuel with methanol and alchohol in it and they say that there is no advantage but the boats are running 105mph - are we supposed to accept that in the same way?

[lindeman]

First of all - the fuel was specified in the Advance Program, which Cominoff has requested all organizers to specify. The reason for this is for example South-Africa where only unleaded 95 octane fuel is generally available, which is not perticularly good for the XR2s. This to avoid competitors coming from all over the world, only to find out that the fuel is not good enough for their engines.

We have tried to argue for Cominoff the problems we are facing with the fuel, but with no luck. Please note that the problem is much greater with the cats because of higher RPMs. The problem is that powerboating is one of few motorsports where we are not allowed to use racing fuel, which would guarantee us the same fuel specs all over the world (FIA), and probably save a lot of engines...

Please also note that the world record in 3C is about 100 mph with regular pump fuel.

I know you only have my word for this, but I can assure you that I don't get ANY performance gain on my engine using Aspen (or any other alkylat fuel). It has been set up for Italian fuel!

-Morten-

[Cat]

Cookee
If your worried about the black cloud of smoke behind your boat (if you run 98 mains) send yor motor to sweden or norway to have it blueprinted then prop it to rev to 8000rpm.
This should stop it smoking. WARNING DO NOT USE 86 MAIN JETS ANY MORE AS IT WILL STOP SMOKING FOREVER.

[Cookee]

Originally posted by lindeman

We have tried to argue for Cominoff the problems we are facing with the fuel, but with no luck. Please note that the problem is much greater with the cats because of higher RPMs. The problem is that powerboating is one of few motorsports where we are not allowed to use racing fuel, which would guarantee us the same fuel specs all over the world (FIA), and probably save a lot of engines...

-Morten-

1. So the Cominoff (UIM who are the governing body of the sport world wide) don't want you to run the fuel - my point exactly!

2. Don't run the revs!


3. We ran in South Africa and Italy as well as Gibralter on standard UK set ups and to my knowledge there were no fuel related problems -

4. The italians run cats ok and the only Swedish cat in the UK keeps blowing up powerheads???

All I want is a level playing field - unless I import special Swedish fuel and experiment with different setups in private testing only, I would never contemplate running a different fuel in a foreign country in a 3 race World Championship, and I'm afraid I don't know anyone at this level that has the budget to do that! So I think in my humble opinion that the spirit of the rules should be adhered to if not the letter - As I have said before Morten I think that all of the Scandivian teams were very friendly and I would never have a bad word said about you as I really believe that you do not intend to cheat, but rules are rules and if we don't stick to them what is the point?

All the best,

[lindeman]

1. Cominoff changed their rules some years ago because they really admitted they know nothing about fuel. (We had a fuel spec in the rulebook, which would have disqualified all European and American fuel)

2. Start running cats - you'd get the revs. Offshore class 3C is for both single and multi hulls

3. SA got a leaded fuel for the competition as far as I can remember - this to get the needed octane

4. I'm not saying they are blowing up all the time - you have a much higher risk.

What we all can agree on is that we need a common set of parameters to achieve fair racing throughout all members of the UIM. Currently the regular pump fuel specs differentiate a lot between different countries. Fuel is not stable, and the quality also defecates a lot between different fuel stations depending of how old it is. FIA has currently two, full time employees working on - fuel. Why don't we say that we allow for FIA racing fuel - which will be more or less equal throughout the world?

Another problem we are facing is the disallowance of blueprinting the new EPA engines. I know from manufacturers that they have problems following the +/- 5% HP specs from the EU. +/- 5% will give a range of 190-210 HP for the new engines....


-Morten-

[Cookee]

Originally posted by lindeman

3. SA got a leaded fuel for the competition as far as I can remember - this to get the needed octane

-Morten-

I was there and I bought the fuel from a regular pump!

A more precise defintion would help but sticking to what the UIM's rule book would be a start - right or wrong.

Don't know anything about the new engines so I can't comment but I see your point.

[nobwaver]

Cookee, Im curious, how many powerheads did you blow up last year using your english "pumped fuel"

[Cookee]

Hello there nobwaver - well that's a good question, however I am fairly sure that our engine problems stemmed from fitting a fuel computer to the boat which needed an inline flow meter, so it would be irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned!