fresh and lean attack using illegal fuel?

https://www.roadracingworld.com/new...ta-superbike-race-two-for-non-compliant-fuel/

 

The Yamaha statement is interesting.... Sounds like they want it to go away and I wouldn't be surprised if RS got a STFU and move on memo from YMUS...

 

A few decades ago my dad found some Elf I had left over and poured it in the mower he used to cut the grass near the gravel driveway.

 

My birdie told me VP just recalled all the fuel that MA was using

 

Bombshell, this ain't over

 

Link?

 

I nominate Johnny B to serve up the bitch slap VP quality control people are about to get.

Care to place bets on a new fuel supplier for 2025?

 

D

Details??

 

More nerd shit:

Thanks to @regularguy for linking the FIM fuel regs. I love how the FIM specs are laid out, btw, and also that all of the analytical test methods indicated are standardized. It's clear what's passing, what's failing, and exactly what analytical test methods to determine those values and what tolerances are acceptable.

By my understanding, the FIM specs might be less important for the Attack Yamaha fuel case. For the FIM rules, its clear that the manufacturers need to demonstrate how their fuel meets the specifications, so that it can be listed as an approved fuel. I am sure that fuel manufactures set tighter specs for their products, so the lot-to-lot variability of Fuel X won't be anywhere close to the entire range of permissible values set by the FIM. It's also clear that competitors may be subject to fuel testing to make sure the fuel is in compliance.

Something that is NOT immediately clear to me from the FIM regs (maybe my own ignorance/maybe someone here has answers): does the FIM have guidance for how fuel testing should occur for a spec fuel series? ALL of the approved "category 1" or "category 2" fuels meet the homologation standards set by the FIM. But of course, if there is a spec fuel like MGP for a series, competitors can't use a comparable Repsol product, even though both are homologated fuels and would "pass" a fuel test based on homologation specs.

If it was the FIM performing the tests to determine if a competitor has suitable fuel in a spec fuel series, they might do what MA does, or they might perform some battery of tests like they do for overall compliance, but with tighter limits based upon specs provided by VP. Anyone happen to know what they do?

Anyway, so what does MA do?

https://americanmotorcyclist.com/wp...23-MotoAmerica-Regulations-v8.12.23-Final.pdf

See page number 154 (pg 160 of the whole PDF doc).

"The GC Fingerprint Method" is not a standardized method. I don't mean to say that it's bullshit or that it's not good - I would imagine that the testing service that MA uses does good work and is consistent with whatever method they use, but it's not standardized in the way "ISO ####" or "ASTM ####" correspond to specific test methods. Not necessarily good or bad, but interesting to me considering how robust the FIM guidelines are.

Two things stick out to me about the way the MA fuel regs are worded:

1) The fuel test is performed relative to a provided MGP reference standard (premixed, final product I'd assume). Not absolute values for individual components with individual reference standards. This isn't necessarily a problem, and the testing lab would need to use some reference standard or standards as part of their analysis, EXCEPT a reference standard needs to be stable over time/storage so that it's consistent. A big part of this whole adventure is the claim that either VP specs have changed slightly over time but were not publicized, or that VP specs are looser than they ought to be, or that as a mixture MGP doesn't have as sufficient shelf life and will degrade over time. So, if any of these DO turn out to be true, then that significantly hurts the validity of the test method, if the reference standard itself isn't accurate/consistent.

2) unlike the FIM fuel regs, this wording doesn't indicate what's considered passing or failing, or how pass/fail is calculated. And without knowing how purity/pass fail is calculated in the test method, its basically impossible to say whether the results are solid or whether anything could skew results such that a fuel that should pass, doesn't.

So... yeah. interesting, right? Nothing about the public details really stick out to me to suggest that VP or Attack Yamaha is clearly in the wrong, but at least everything that Stanboli has claimed seems very much within the realm of possibility to me now that I'm considering the type of fuel test that MA performs. Also, none of this changes how (relatively) easy it would be to do some independent testing on different lots of old/new MGP fuel to appeal and really embarrass VP in the process.

I follow chemistry news. I follow motorcycle news. Rarely do I get to enjoy watching a crossover like this play out

 

That mean my 3/4 full can of T4 is going on a trip?

 

Yes into the fuel tank for that club race you need to do to prep for MA next year!!!!!!

 

could it be because they want only the MGP-R out there?

 

I was just getting my Fuel delivered for the next race for the TT, and the local VP dealer mentioned it to me.

 

https://www.roadracingworld.com/news/motoamerica-disputes-yamaha-statement-on-gagne-penalty/

 

Sounds like they used 2024 not 2022 fuel

 

What a absolute shit show LOL

 

That tracked with the rumors I heard.

All Richard has done now has made sure that MotoAmerica / VP won’t go by the honor system and everyone now will be tested on the reg. Furthermore, you have to wonder about every round after Road America. Not a bad thing, everyone should be tested on the regular.

My guess, behind the scenes, Yamaha isn’t thrilled with Richard opening his mouth on the podcast and drawing enough attention to get tested, and then not only be tested, but fail said test in the first pass and it’s all but insinuated that he used a fuel that had an oxygenator that was never in MGP, in any year. Now everyone can talk about this for the next several months instead of their championship. I feel bad for Jake because it’s his name on the headline and it’s not his doing, and I’d be pretty pissed if I was him at the whole thing.

 

I don't think they ran the fuel before cota. At cota it was obvious according to multiple riders that it smelled different etc.
I do believe it was absolutely on purpose and to prove a point by stanboli after the road america issues. With how he treats his engines and data there is no way it was an accident and that they confused Which fuel was In the bikes..
He knew they wouldn't take the championship away from him either.

 

Each team in MotoGP has their own contracts with fuel manufacturers and it’s exactly as you state. They use fuel that meets the certain spec from their supplier… Yamaha/Elf Ducati/Shell Honda/Repsol etc…

VP made their own back during the CRT years for the American teams… odd turn of events as Attack was one along with GP Tech…

Agip was another supplier and one other off brand at Indy… I still have full drums from some of them

 

What’s the point he proved? If that’s the fuel everyone runs then they run their engines harder too and the pecking order in trap speeds stays the same. That’s the point of a spec fuel, to level the playing field.

You can have the best, highest performance, most consistent fuel in the world. Running it so on the edge that you blow engines, which Richard has a history of doing at times, is a choice he makes.

All he has done has made sure we can talk about this instead of how awesome Yamaha’s are for the next six months. Pro racing is marketing to sell bikes and products for advertisers.