WR1 600BHP TIME ATTACK CAR
17 April 2011, 08:41 PM
#61
15k for a year :O
Fee won club class last year on way less than that - less than half that (and thats driving about 16hrs round trip to all but 1 round!, MLR trackdays on the sats and hotels for 2-3 nights)
The first entry does cost a bit getting all the safety stuff, but thats covered so should be taken out of the budget for every round.
We budgeted 500 a round in 2010 and normally kept to it - add on to that 2 sets of tyres, 3 sets of pads, oil etc etc
6-7000k
Fee won club class last year on way less than that - less than half that (and thats driving about 16hrs round trip to all but 1 round!, MLR trackdays on the sats and hotels for 2-3 nights)
The first entry does cost a bit getting all the safety stuff, but thats covered so should be taken out of the budget for every round.
We budgeted 500 a round in 2010 and normally kept to it - add on to that 2 sets of tyres, 3 sets of pads, oil etc etc
6-7000k
17 April 2011, 09:55 PM
#68
The initial costs are disproportionate covering safety stuff - it can be done way cheaper.
Last edited by dynamix; 17 April 2011 at 11:02 PM. Reason: to clarify that was club class budget
17 April 2011, 10:54 PM
#71
500 a round was for travel/hotels/MLR trackdays
Budget broken down for 2010
2500 - fuel/hotels/trackdays
1300 - entry fees
2000'ish - consumables like tyres/pads/oil
Fee used 1 and a half sets of pads and popped a newish set from my Impreza in for the Snetterton final as she didnt like the feel of hers
2 new sets of tyres in 2010, 1 old set (sold 1 old set on)
not taking breakages into account.....
No engine breakages - new engine late 2009
3 gearboxes - £150-£350 a time
New ECU - 700
New Ign Amp - xxx
We own a tow car and trailer so that help too.
Budget broken down for 2010
2500 - fuel/hotels/trackdays
1300 - entry fees
2000'ish - consumables like tyres/pads/oil
Fee used 1 and a half sets of pads and popped a newish set from my Impreza in for the Snetterton final as she didnt like the feel of hers
2 new sets of tyres in 2010, 1 old set (sold 1 old set on)
not taking breakages into account.....
No engine breakages - new engine late 2009
3 gearboxes - £150-£350 a time
New ECU - 700
New Ign Amp - xxx
We own a tow car and trailer so that help too.
17 April 2011, 11:29 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
So....
If it wasn't mapped for 109 octane fuel (assuming that is what it was) would that not induce the possibility of DET due to the possibility of it running lean (again with the presumption of the extra oxygen content)?
If it wasn't mapped for 109 octane fuel (assuming that is what it was) would that not induce the possibility of DET due to the possibility of it running lean (again with the presumption of the extra oxygen content)?
17 April 2011, 11:49 PM
#76
If you've gone on track using 109 fuel in a car that's not been mapped for it then that's why the engine has let go not because of oil surge. No matter waht the cause though Mark it's a damn shame because you were buzzing before it happened and it was clear you were having the time of your life!!
I knew you couldn't run a lower octane but didn't realise you couldn't run as high as 109.
18 April 2011, 08:34 AM
#79
E85 and Meth have different energy content/burn rate/AFR's etc - so def need a remap.
If you ran a mix of E85 (say 50%) without remapping you are going to run lean as you require more E85 to make the same power if you get where I'm coming from.
30-40% more
If you ran a mix of E85 (say 50%) without remapping you are going to run lean as you require more E85 to make the same power if you get where I'm coming from.
30-40% more
18 April 2011, 09:45 AM
#80
Ok this is the last message ill put up guys as im busy stripping the beast.
Was advissed bye paul zen to run some higher octane fuel in my car mixed with my 99 fuel to preserve the engine and stop det.
I purchased this fuel from tractive (ritchard bulmer) who advised me that 105-109 vp are 101 ron bassed fuels and would be fine mixed with my 99 long as i didnt map the car for them and then go back to running just 99 which i new this any way.
My car started to knock casue of oil starvation i know this from my oil temp and oil pressure gauges and yes daz i was loving it and flying..
Now if i find out that what i did fuel wise caussed my issue im sure ill be tlking to paul and tractive about it quite sharpish.
Was advissed bye paul zen to run some higher octane fuel in my car mixed with my 99 fuel to preserve the engine and stop det.
I purchased this fuel from tractive (ritchard bulmer) who advised me that 105-109 vp are 101 ron bassed fuels and would be fine mixed with my 99 long as i didnt map the car for them and then go back to running just 99 which i new this any way.
My car started to knock casue of oil starvation i know this from my oil temp and oil pressure gauges and yes daz i was loving it and flying..
Now if i find out that what i did fuel wise caussed my issue im sure ill be tlking to paul and tractive about it quite sharpish.
18 April 2011, 11:20 AM
#81
Wouldn't need mapping to run the high octane fuel Fud. It is a very good safety precaution to have high octane 
Oil is/was the issue that killed it. Temps being part of it either as cause or symptom of oil starvation. We did chat about this beforehand but didn't thunk it would be an issue this quickly. In a way that is a compliment to your driving.
Oil is/was the issue that killed it. Temps being part of it either as cause or symptom of oil starvation. We did chat about this beforehand but didn't thunk it would be an issue this quickly. In a way that is a compliment to your driving.
18 April 2011, 12:30 PM
#83
Utter crap, comment based on nothing, no mapping experience, no experience with the fuels used, just pure speculation.
I suggested using some 105 RON race fuel as an extra precaution to prevent detonation. It would seem that the nearest equivalent was a mix of 109 RON fuel and V-power.
I can see the comments about oxygen content and leaning out, but no facts.
The VP MS109 fuel is 4.5% oxygen, when used at 50% that will give about 2.25% oxygen, about the same as Tesco 99 fuel. However due to changes in denisty and viscosity the actually fuelling requirements for this fuel are somewhat different to what you would expect.
Eg, from my own personal first hand, actually done not just talked about it experience.
EVO7 with about 600hp:
Pump fuel, 300kpa, 6000rpm, Lambda 0.805, fuel table entry 99.8
MS109 Race fuel, 300kpa, 6000rpm, Lambda 0.79, fuel table entry 101.7
So with the race fuel we are putting in 2% less fuel to run a lambda value which represents about 2% leaner fuelling. In short, at high load the fuelling will not significantly change with the MS109 fuel, the results will be even closer when it's diluted 50%.
WR1 with about 600hp:
Pump fuel, 295kpa, 6100rpm, Lambda 0.77, injector opening time 14.494
Sunoco GTplus 109 Race fuel, 295kpa, 6100rpm, Lambda 0.78, injector opening time 14.172
The race fuel runs 1.3% leaner but the fuelling is 1.8% less, so the actual numbers suggest you need less of it, but within less than 1% the FUELLING IS THE SAME.
Combine the same fuelling with massively improved detonation resistance and you will have a setup that is much safer on track.
I suggested using some 105 RON race fuel as an extra precaution to prevent detonation. It would seem that the nearest equivalent was a mix of 109 RON fuel and V-power.
I can see the comments about oxygen content and leaning out, but no facts.
The VP MS109 fuel is 4.5% oxygen, when used at 50% that will give about 2.25% oxygen, about the same as Tesco 99 fuel. However due to changes in denisty and viscosity the actually fuelling requirements for this fuel are somewhat different to what you would expect.
Eg, from my own personal first hand, actually done not just talked about it experience.
EVO7 with about 600hp:
Pump fuel, 300kpa, 6000rpm, Lambda 0.805, fuel table entry 99.8
MS109 Race fuel, 300kpa, 6000rpm, Lambda 0.79, fuel table entry 101.7
So with the race fuel we are putting in 2% less fuel to run a lambda value which represents about 2% leaner fuelling. In short, at high load the fuelling will not significantly change with the MS109 fuel, the results will be even closer when it's diluted 50%.
WR1 with about 600hp:
Pump fuel, 295kpa, 6100rpm, Lambda 0.77, injector opening time 14.494
Sunoco GTplus 109 Race fuel, 295kpa, 6100rpm, Lambda 0.78, injector opening time 14.172
The race fuel runs 1.3% leaner but the fuelling is 1.8% less, so the actual numbers suggest you need less of it, but within less than 1% the FUELLING IS THE SAME.
Combine the same fuelling with massively improved detonation resistance and you will have a setup that is much safer on track.
If you've gone on track using 109 fuel in a car that's not been mapped for it then that's why the engine has let go not because of oil surge. No matter waht the cause though Mark it's a damn shame because you were buzzing before it happened and it was clear you were having the time of your life!!
18 April 2011, 12:58 PM
#85
Wind your neck in Paul!
Nobody had mentioned about it being a mix of fuel and it sounded like mark had just filled his tank with with 109 octane race fuel which would of course would be an issue.
Please don't belittle me like that again as that sh*te can work both ways!
Nobody had mentioned about it being a mix of fuel and it sounded like mark had just filled his tank with with 109 octane race fuel which would of course would be an issue.
Please don't belittle me like that again as that sh*te can work both ways!
18 April 2011, 01:59 PM
#86
Please tell me why it would be an issue to use pure 109 race fuel.
Wind your neck in Paul!
Nobody had mentioned about it being a mix of fuel and it sounded like mark had just filled his tank with with 109 octane race fuel which would of course would be an issue.
Please don't belittle me like that again as that sh*te can work both ways!
Nobody had mentioned about it being a mix of fuel and it sounded like mark had just filled his tank with with 109 octane race fuel which would of course would be an issue.
Please don't belittle me like that again as that sh*te can work both ways!
18 April 2011, 04:36 PM
#88
Based on the evidence I have, if you have a car that doesn't run on the stock ECU I think you could probably run the MS109 fuel without a remap. I have mapped on this fuel a number of times, and also on the Sunoco GT PLus 109 RON fuel which is similar but not the same.
Looking only at the datasheet, I would say the opposite, but my first hand experience of these fuels is that they do not require the extra fuel flow that they should. Now this may be for a few reasons, I suspect one of them is that V-Power has a higher oxygen content than people realise, close to the BS (for unleaded fuel) limit of 2.7%. Every time I have mapped with this fuel I have started by adding a lot of fuel to the fuel map in line with the apparent change in the stoich AFR, and while this seems close at light loads, once you get up to high injector opening times the difference just isn't there. The reality is that the leaning out that I expected just as much as you, just doesn't happen, an 109 Octane fuel map is almost exactly the same, or in many cases calls for LESS fuel in order to run the car leaner than the equivalent v-power map.
There are a number of possible reasons for this.
- Fuel density, often overlooked, but the fuel system is volume based while Lambda values rely on mass flows. However it's surprising that the MS109 fuel has a relatively low density.
- Fuel contents, the oxygen content is not the only story, the MS109 and Sunoco fuels use a lot of Toluene, which also has a lower stoich point than gasoline, but is about 23% more dense. You also have evaporative effects that may effect how much of the fuel isn't properly burnt, thereby changing the apparent AFR.
- Fuel viscosity, at high opening times I suspect the volumetric flow of the injectors is higher due to lower fuel viscosity, but like the other possibilities it's just a guess.
But it's not all the same, at low loads, idle and low speed cruise around atmospheric, the change in fuelling is more inline with what you might predict. Typically the 109 RON race fuel maps have less fuel at high load to deliberately run them leaner, and more fuel low down to maintain the correct AFR. I don't know why that is, but I can assure this is the case in the 10 or so cars where I have comparative maps for both fuels. So that means that if you were to try the same trick on an OEM ECU you may well run into significant unpredictable changes caused by long term fuel learning values that will alter the on load fuelling.
Furthermore, your guess that a slight leanness will cause detonation is completely unfounded. If you run the fuel neat it is ridiculously resistant to knock. On Jag's car running the Sunoco fuel I could hit MBT at 2 bar at peak torque. I have mapped 3 big power EVOs on the VP fuel and again I can hit MBT with the fuel. On Clive's car when we tried the VP fuel again we could hit MBT at 2 bar with lots of timing. You can run the fuel at 13:1 at peak torque and still it will not really det. And if the fuel did make at run at say 11.9:1 instead of 11.2:1 it would still be miles away from detonation on the same ignition map as used with v-power. On Jag's car for instance we are talking a difference of 8 degrees of ignition timing at peak torque when comparing V-power to Sunoco GTplus 109 RON fuel, and even then I think you could add more but there was no power gained. At high boost v-power is very poor with sustained load and once det starts it can be almost impossible to stop without letting off the throttle, the extra stability offered by race fuels of even "low" octane makes them a far safer bet to run with on track compared to just sticking with V-power.
However, my actual recommendation to Mark was to use a 105RON unleaded fuel with typically 3.5% oxygen, used neat, and for this I would have no problem running the car flat out without a remap. My direct 1st hand experience with this exact fuel shows that it gives at most a 1% change in the lambda compared to V-Power for the same injector opening time at high load. After giving that recommendation to Mark, and subsequently suffering a bearing failure, the internet experts convinced Mark that my specific advice had directly caused his failure (whether or not they knew the advice was mine or not). Your comments did not talk about possibilities, but a gave a throw away comment put out there in the public domain as fact.
Looking only at the datasheet, I would say the opposite, but my first hand experience of these fuels is that they do not require the extra fuel flow that they should. Now this may be for a few reasons, I suspect one of them is that V-Power has a higher oxygen content than people realise, close to the BS (for unleaded fuel) limit of 2.7%. Every time I have mapped with this fuel I have started by adding a lot of fuel to the fuel map in line with the apparent change in the stoich AFR, and while this seems close at light loads, once you get up to high injector opening times the difference just isn't there. The reality is that the leaning out that I expected just as much as you, just doesn't happen, an 109 Octane fuel map is almost exactly the same, or in many cases calls for LESS fuel in order to run the car leaner than the equivalent v-power map.
There are a number of possible reasons for this.
- Fuel density, often overlooked, but the fuel system is volume based while Lambda values rely on mass flows. However it's surprising that the MS109 fuel has a relatively low density.
- Fuel contents, the oxygen content is not the only story, the MS109 and Sunoco fuels use a lot of Toluene, which also has a lower stoich point than gasoline, but is about 23% more dense. You also have evaporative effects that may effect how much of the fuel isn't properly burnt, thereby changing the apparent AFR.
- Fuel viscosity, at high opening times I suspect the volumetric flow of the injectors is higher due to lower fuel viscosity, but like the other possibilities it's just a guess.
But it's not all the same, at low loads, idle and low speed cruise around atmospheric, the change in fuelling is more inline with what you might predict. Typically the 109 RON race fuel maps have less fuel at high load to deliberately run them leaner, and more fuel low down to maintain the correct AFR. I don't know why that is, but I can assure this is the case in the 10 or so cars where I have comparative maps for both fuels. So that means that if you were to try the same trick on an OEM ECU you may well run into significant unpredictable changes caused by long term fuel learning values that will alter the on load fuelling.
Furthermore, your guess that a slight leanness will cause detonation is completely unfounded. If you run the fuel neat it is ridiculously resistant to knock. On Jag's car running the Sunoco fuel I could hit MBT at 2 bar at peak torque. I have mapped 3 big power EVOs on the VP fuel and again I can hit MBT with the fuel. On Clive's car when we tried the VP fuel again we could hit MBT at 2 bar with lots of timing. You can run the fuel at 13:1 at peak torque and still it will not really det. And if the fuel did make at run at say 11.9:1 instead of 11.2:1 it would still be miles away from detonation on the same ignition map as used with v-power. On Jag's car for instance we are talking a difference of 8 degrees of ignition timing at peak torque when comparing V-power to Sunoco GTplus 109 RON fuel, and even then I think you could add more but there was no power gained. At high boost v-power is very poor with sustained load and once det starts it can be almost impossible to stop without letting off the throttle, the extra stability offered by race fuels of even "low" octane makes them a far safer bet to run with on track compared to just sticking with V-power.
However, my actual recommendation to Mark was to use a 105RON unleaded fuel with typically 3.5% oxygen, used neat, and for this I would have no problem running the car flat out without a remap. My direct 1st hand experience with this exact fuel shows that it gives at most a 1% change in the lambda compared to V-Power for the same injector opening time at high load. After giving that recommendation to Mark, and subsequently suffering a bearing failure, the internet experts convinced Mark that my specific advice had directly caused his failure (whether or not they knew the advice was mine or not). Your comments did not talk about possibilities, but a gave a throw away comment put out there in the public domain as fact.
18 April 2011, 05:15 PM
#89
I did not for one second suggest or imply that your advice had led to Mark's failure. I didnt even know you or anyone else for that matter had given fud any advice. I just based my comments on what I've read many times from mappers like yourself. i.e saying that using a fuel that a car isn't mapped for can lead to problems, especially the extremes of race fuel.
I have no doubt your knowledge far exceeds mine on this subject and i'm grateful for the detail you've just gone into.
I've just objected to the way you shot me down as it was fairly over the top for you. Perhaps you've just had a bad day and are a little on the grumpy side today
I have no doubt your knowledge far exceeds mine on this subject and i'm grateful for the detail you've just gone into.
I've just objected to the way you shot me down as it was fairly over the top for you. Perhaps you've just had a bad day and are a little on the grumpy side today
18 April 2011, 11:55 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On MLR
Posts: 1,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on the evidence I have, if you have a car that doesn't run on the stock ECU I think you could probably run the MS109 fuel without a remap. I have mapped on this fuel a number of times, and also on the Sunoco GT PLus 109 RON fuel which is similar but not the same.
Looking only at the datasheet, I would say the opposite, but my first hand experience of these fuels is that they do not require the extra fuel flow that they should. Now this may be for a few reasons, I suspect one of them is that V-Power has a higher oxygen content than people realise, close to the BS (for unleaded fuel) limit of 2.7%. Every time I have mapped with this fuel I have started by adding a lot of fuel to the fuel map in line with the apparent change in the stoich AFR, and while this seems close at light loads, once you get up to high injector opening times the difference just isn't there. The reality is that the leaning out that I expected just as much as you, just doesn't happen, an 109 Octane fuel map is almost exactly the same, or in many cases calls for LESS fuel in order to run the car leaner than the equivalent v-power map.
There are a number of possible reasons for this.
- Fuel density, often overlooked, but the fuel system is volume based while Lambda values rely on mass flows. However it's surprising that the MS109 fuel has a relatively low density.
- Fuel contents, the oxygen content is not the only story, the MS109 and Sunoco fuels use a lot of Toluene, which also has a lower stoich point than gasoline, but is about 23% more dense. You also have evaporative effects that may effect how much of the fuel isn't properly burnt, thereby changing the apparent AFR.
- Fuel viscosity, at high opening times I suspect the volumetric flow of the injectors is higher due to lower fuel viscosity, but like the other possibilities it's just a guess.
But it's not all the same, at low loads, idle and low speed cruise around atmospheric, the change in fuelling is more inline with what you might predict. Typically the 109 RON race fuel maps have less fuel at high load to deliberately run them leaner, and more fuel low down to maintain the correct AFR. I don't know why that is, but I can assure this is the case in the 10 or so cars where I have comparative maps for both fuels. So that means that if you were to try the same trick on an OEM ECU you may well run into significant unpredictable changes caused by long term fuel learning values that will alter the on load fuelling.
Furthermore, your guess that a slight leanness will cause detonation is completely unfounded. If you run the fuel neat it is ridiculously resistant to knock. On Jag's car running the Sunoco fuel I could hit MBT at 2 bar at peak torque. I have mapped 3 big power EVOs on the VP fuel and again I can hit MBT with the fuel. On Clive's car when we tried the VP fuel again we could hit MBT at 2 bar with lots of timing. You can run the fuel at 13:1 at peak torque and still it will not really det. And if the fuel did make at run at say 11.9:1 instead of 11.2:1 it would still be miles away from detonation on the same ignition map as used with v-power. On Jag's car for instance we are talking a difference of 8 degrees of ignition timing at peak torque when comparing V-power to Sunoco GTplus 109 RON fuel, and even then I think you could add more but there was no power gained. At high boost v-power is very poor with sustained load and once det starts it can be almost impossible to stop without letting off the throttle, the extra stability offered by race fuels of even "low" octane makes them a far safer bet to run with on track compared to just sticking with V-power.
However, my actual recommendation to Mark was to use a 105RON unleaded fuel with typically 3.5% oxygen, used neat, and for this I would have no problem running the car flat out without a remap. My direct 1st hand experience with this exact fuel shows that it gives at most a 1% change in the lambda compared to V-Power for the same injector opening time at high load. After giving that recommendation to Mark, and subsequently suffering a bearing failure, the internet experts convinced Mark that my specific advice had directly caused his failure (whether or not they knew the advice was mine or not). Your comments did not talk about possibilities, but a gave a throw away comment put out there in the public domain as fact.
Looking only at the datasheet, I would say the opposite, but my first hand experience of these fuels is that they do not require the extra fuel flow that they should. Now this may be for a few reasons, I suspect one of them is that V-Power has a higher oxygen content than people realise, close to the BS (for unleaded fuel) limit of 2.7%. Every time I have mapped with this fuel I have started by adding a lot of fuel to the fuel map in line with the apparent change in the stoich AFR, and while this seems close at light loads, once you get up to high injector opening times the difference just isn't there. The reality is that the leaning out that I expected just as much as you, just doesn't happen, an 109 Octane fuel map is almost exactly the same, or in many cases calls for LESS fuel in order to run the car leaner than the equivalent v-power map.
There are a number of possible reasons for this.
- Fuel density, often overlooked, but the fuel system is volume based while Lambda values rely on mass flows. However it's surprising that the MS109 fuel has a relatively low density.
- Fuel contents, the oxygen content is not the only story, the MS109 and Sunoco fuels use a lot of Toluene, which also has a lower stoich point than gasoline, but is about 23% more dense. You also have evaporative effects that may effect how much of the fuel isn't properly burnt, thereby changing the apparent AFR.
- Fuel viscosity, at high opening times I suspect the volumetric flow of the injectors is higher due to lower fuel viscosity, but like the other possibilities it's just a guess.
But it's not all the same, at low loads, idle and low speed cruise around atmospheric, the change in fuelling is more inline with what you might predict. Typically the 109 RON race fuel maps have less fuel at high load to deliberately run them leaner, and more fuel low down to maintain the correct AFR. I don't know why that is, but I can assure this is the case in the 10 or so cars where I have comparative maps for both fuels. So that means that if you were to try the same trick on an OEM ECU you may well run into significant unpredictable changes caused by long term fuel learning values that will alter the on load fuelling.
Furthermore, your guess that a slight leanness will cause detonation is completely unfounded. If you run the fuel neat it is ridiculously resistant to knock. On Jag's car running the Sunoco fuel I could hit MBT at 2 bar at peak torque. I have mapped 3 big power EVOs on the VP fuel and again I can hit MBT with the fuel. On Clive's car when we tried the VP fuel again we could hit MBT at 2 bar with lots of timing. You can run the fuel at 13:1 at peak torque and still it will not really det. And if the fuel did make at run at say 11.9:1 instead of 11.2:1 it would still be miles away from detonation on the same ignition map as used with v-power. On Jag's car for instance we are talking a difference of 8 degrees of ignition timing at peak torque when comparing V-power to Sunoco GTplus 109 RON fuel, and even then I think you could add more but there was no power gained. At high boost v-power is very poor with sustained load and once det starts it can be almost impossible to stop without letting off the throttle, the extra stability offered by race fuels of even "low" octane makes them a far safer bet to run with on track compared to just sticking with V-power.
However, my actual recommendation to Mark was to use a 105RON unleaded fuel with typically 3.5% oxygen, used neat, and for this I would have no problem running the car flat out without a remap. My direct 1st hand experience with this exact fuel shows that it gives at most a 1% change in the lambda compared to V-Power for the same injector opening time at high load. After giving that recommendation to Mark, and subsequently suffering a bearing failure, the internet experts convinced Mark that my specific advice had directly caused his failure (whether or not they knew the advice was mine or not). Your comments did not talk about possibilities, but a gave a throw away comment put out there in the public domain as fact.
Is it possible to blend Sunoco GT plus with Tesco 99 to avoid det on a car mapped for Tesco 99? Or does the fuel need to be run neat to gain the maximum benefits of using race fuel for track days.
Also what’s your view on using 20% methanol and Tesco 99 for track fuel? As I’ve heard of mixing issues due to methanol being immiscible with petrol or does the tank recycle allow for a consistent solution?