fresh and lean attack using illegal fuel?

I get that, but if you're going to mandate something for all teams, you should make sure it's at least available to the teams before the first race.

On any given weekend, there's 120+ entries....and how many "semi teams"? 10? 12? Just saying.

 

I get our stuff from the Terre Haute DC and they had not even heard of it. So they made a couple calls, and his words to me were "they haven't released it yet."

 

Nerd shit:

Has MA actually explained how the fuel failed specs for the test? Or, do they just not disclose that info? ie, by revealing the tests and tolerances, that would allow teams to modify what is supposed to be a spec fuel and push it just to the edge of failing?

This whole saga is 'funny' to me* because it could be strongly supported one way or another with a little more rigorous analytical chemistry instead of just speculating. Or, VP could offer up a better explanation of the analytical chemistry that has already been done to claim a failing test:

1) Stanboli's claims that the fuel is different every round because it's all from different lots is technically correct, but not necessarily actionable on its own. Here are VPs specs for MGP (public version on VP website, last revised Nov 2019) https://vpracingfuels.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/VP-MGP-Spec-Sheets_100419A-1.pdf

Per the spec sheet, these are all "typical values." Although VP specs do not explicitly state ranges, VP absolutely would have prescribed acceptable ranges for all of these values that they would consider "meeting specification" for sale of final product, unless they're playing real fast and loose with their manufacturing practices. For a fuel test for a race team, even specs like "leaded: yes/no" should have some sort of numerical limit attached to them, because if you go looking close enough there's a good chance there will be quantifiable amounts of trace lead present and there needs to be a way to differentiate the negligible amounts that are naturally present vs purposeful adulteration of the fuel.

How tight these ranges are (or what other additive blend might change but isn't captured in specs) either does or doesn't give Stanboli's "different lots" argument any weight.

Stanboli or anyone else could send samples of different lots of commercially available MGP out for 3rd party analytical testing to get an idea for how tight these specs are. Bonus points if Stanboli has any unopend fuel from the same manufacturing lots that had previously passed/failed that could be sent in for analysis...

2) Stanboli's claim that the fuel was old and that's why it failed the test can also be tested the same way, as well as picking apart a few ways the fuel could be "old": Changes that VP has made over time but didn't disclose, shelf stability of unopened fuel, and fuel stability after a can has been opened.

- If anyone has unopened lots of old vs new fuel, sending these out for analysis would give pretty strong indication that formulation and/or specs have changed over time.

- VP will probably have their own internal data for shelf life, but this could be replicated independently by sampling new lots over time. Time consuming though.

- Per VP specs, MGP's "oxidation stability (min.) = 1440+". I'm not 100% sure, but reasonably confident that is stability in minutes (so, minimum 24 hr stability) when exposed to air as oxidative degradation of what's inside the jug. I assume this test does NOT account for changes from evaporative losses, just oxidative degradation, but don't quote me on that. Either way, both would be easy to track by pulling samples for analysis over a couple days time.

I'd hope that somewhere behind the scenes VP has made it clear to Attack exactly how they failed the fuel test, and why Stanboli's claims don't line up. But if not, its not too hard for Attack to send out some fuel for testing to make their case.

*I work in chemical manufacturing, although as an organic chemist and not in the petroleum industry. If either Attack or VP want to hire me as a consultant, though, DM me...

 

this document has the parameters:
https://www.fim-moto.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/2021/FIM_Fuels_Regulation.pdf

 

hell yeah, can't wait to dive into this. thanks!

 

Fucking nerds. I fucking love it. Please share more whenever you feel!

 

This thread is a joke. It just makes MotoAmerica look foolish.

 

Well if they're acting foolish maybe the shoe fits.

 

Rolling starts foolish?

 

Pace car foolish

 

There are a few fanatics on here. (Or is it fan-addicts?)

 

I remember having to jump through hoops getting the old Sunoco when we were going to run AMA and I wanted the bike tuned before we showed up. I just found a can of it in my shop literally an hour ago that is still unopened. I think I will pour some of it in the Prius, since it is unleaded, or maybe the pickup truck.

 

Convert one of the forklifts from LPG?

 

Interesting that they must perform a test which shows at least one property to be out of spec OTHER THAN COLOR to take any further action. MGP is dyed yellow, MGP-R will not be.

 

Gagne DQ'd from race2 COTA

 

Is the article only on FB?

 

I can't wait to see Stanboli's "I don't give a shit" facial expression on the next podcast.

 

https://www.motoamerica.com/gagne-d...8ba7HPfKuEYrbIFqTmX-8gDnFkWX6dbrciZ3zjxCs-vQE

 

Man since I’ve missed the past few rounds of MotoGP since the break, and MotoAmerica, I didn’t realize the season was already done. Just finally got my MotoGP membership straightened out from the summer break, clear your cookies, fiasco.