24 replies to this topic

[llmaurice]

I read recently that the U.S. authorities have criticised the Nascar managemnet for not going over to unleaded fuel .
They state that the high lead content is a health hazard to the spectators .
In turn Nascar say their engines will suffer as they cannot run correctly on U/L fuel.
Just how old fashioned are those dinosaurs ?
Even most of us club racers have to manage to run our FF1600 and FF2000 motors on U/L now (even if we don't like the stuff .)
Of course , those dirty little two stroke race motors (50bhp din from a 125 ) perform fine on the latest unleaded fuels but of course , they are deemed as a health hazard by those with vested interests who are totally opposed to the Oz Orbital motor.

[Bob Riebe]

In the restrictor races they are try to tune to a fine edge that still gives them something resembling torque, whilst extracting as much horsepower from a strangled engine.
The front runners are running closed to that edge and unleaded fuel would make it far more expensive to reach. i.e. the cars would be slower and the already expensive engines would get even more so.

High performance aircraft engines use leaded fuel for the same reasons NASCAR cars do, to avoid engine failure.
Bob

[llmaurice]

I realise that the good old piston engined wartime aircraft needed 100/130 Avgas but back to racing - F1 ,F3000,GP2, A1,F3, F/Renault,F/BMW,Historic (all classes in UK ),FF1600,FF2000 ALL have to run unleaded so where's the difference?
After all , we're all trying to get the best from our motors ,even those of us with iron heads so why is Nascar different ? Is it just a basic couldn't care less attitude toward the POSSIBLE danger of their emissions ?

[McGuire]

NASCAR is on this issue, in its usual way...that is to say, with tortoise-like speed and careful deliberation. Also, part of the call rests with its current fuel supplier Sunoco, which came on board only last year.

Meanwhile NASCAR is taking a look at a new engine for 2007, which many of the teams and suppliers would like to push back to 2008. If the new engine comes in 2007, the new fuel will be adopted then too. If the engine change is moved back to 2008, the fuel switch could be made as early as next year (2006).

[Greg Locock]

By the way, find me one peer reviewed study indicating that the lead from the exhausts in a race are a significant risk to a spectator. Alarmist nonsense in my opinion (largely shaped by the ongoing reassessments that have taken place since the introduction of lead free petrol - stupid people still have stupid children).

[McGuire]

Symbolic measures and consistency of regulation are integral to social policy. There is really no good reason NASCAR can't run unleaded fuel like everyone else, so the change is logical and warranted. However, a fresh round of media hysteria over the issue is not...but that is often a natural part of the process as well.

[McGuire]

On a semi-related note, next year the Indy Racing league will begin converting from methanol to ethanol, with a 10% ethanol blend in 2006 and 100% ethanol in 2007. There is no emissions benefit, but ethanol is considered a renewable resource.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by McGuire
On a semi-related note, next year the Indy Racing league will begin converting from methanol to ethanol, with a 10% ethanol blend in 2006 and 100% ethanol in 2007. There is no emissions benefit, but ethanol is considered a renewable resource.

I've read one account (the guy sounded authoratative) that claimed it takes 1.7 gallons of fossil fuel (tractor fuel, fertilzer production, ethanol processing, etc.) to create 1.0 gallon of ethanol. Big government subsidy to farmers and processors makes it possible... couldn't stand economically on its own, yada, yada, yada. Wouldn't surprise me if it's true. Just a nice photo-op for Sen. Bayh and Tony George?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy


I've read one account (the guy sounded authoratative) that claimed it takes 1.7 gallons of fossil fuel (tractor fuel, fertilzer production, ethanol processing, etc.) to create 1.0 gallon of ethanol. Big government subsidy to farmers and processors makes it possible... couldn't stand economically on its own, yada, yada, yada. Wouldn't surprise me if it's true. Just a nice photo-op for Sen. Bayh and Tony George?

Significant cash sponsorship from the ethanol lobby, it appears to me. This group sponsored an ethanol-powered alky funny car for Mark Thomas in IHRA for many years, and is now on Paul Dana's IRL car from Hemelgarn Racing.

This is an unexpected boon to the IRL, as otherwise what are its chances of getting an "official fuel supplier" with financial and marketing support when its series runs on alcohol rather than gasoline? Champ Car is trying to switch to gasoline for that very reason, and as soon as it can land an oil company it surely will.

The problem with ethanol as a road fuel is its dismal caloric value, even less than methanol. I don't know how much petroleum it takes to get one gallon of ethanol from the farmer's field to the pump, but your figures above would not surprise me a bit.

In the early 1920's Ford and General Motors campaigned for ethyl alcohol in gasoline, both to increase octane and support the American farmer etc, but all that was swept aside when tetraethyl lead was discovered. Gasoline with TEL was originally marketed under the trade name "Ethyl"...no doubt to help obscure the fact that this new additive was not the environmentally benign alcohol the consumers had been told about, but in fact an extremely poisonous lead compound.

[McGuire]

It seems highly dubious to me that leaded gasoline in NASCAR presents a direct and immediate health hazard to the spectators, unless they are licking the tailpipes after the race.

However, there are other ways to look at it. For example, two weeks ago I was at the NASCAR event at California Speedway in Fontana, which featued all three major series in one weekend: a 500-mile Nextel Cup race with 43 cars, a 300 mile Busch Series race (43 more) and a 200-mile Craftsman Truck race (36 trucks I think). Including practice and qualifying, that amounts to roughly 52,000 vehicle-miles, all run with leaded fuel. Assuming 4.5 miles per gallon, that amounts to over 11,000 gallons of leaded fuel consumed unto the atmosphere, not including leakage and spillage, onto a facility of roughly 400 acres. Seems to me that will result in measurably higher levels of lead in the air, soil and ground water, no getting around it. So if NASCAR races there twice a year for X years...

[J. Edlund]

Ethanol has an energy content of 26-27 MJ/kg, methanol has 19.95 MJ/kg. Ethanol as road car fuel is usually mixed with gasoline, like E85 which has an energy content of 31 MJ/kg. Typical gasoline is today around 43 MJ/kg, but the NASCAR fuel is as high as 48 MJ/kg.

Methanol is a renewable source just as much ethanol is, if it's not produced from crude oil that is (which today is cheap). Methanol has however the possibility of being an even better fuel than ethanol (better efficiency from production to end user, lower emissions of GHG, lower costs and so on), but methanol is a little harder on the engine and its fuel system (it's also toxic). Today I'll assume that the biggest reason to go for ethanol is agricultural policies, which has very little to do with actual facts.

According to a study, the current ethanol production used in the US which is based on corn decreases the GHG emissions by about 20% when used instead of gasoline. If no energy was used in the ethanol production a decrease of 100% (net) would be possible. Decreasements of above 100% is also possible with a further refined production method (above 100% is possible since the ethanol production also can give electricity as a rest product).

Lead in the fuel causes no direct danger for the spectators, TEL is mainly toxic when concentrated but emissions of lead is of course not something positive. But one should also remeber that if the lead was removed, something else must be added if the octane should be kept at the same level and the addition of for example aromatic hydrocarbons can be just as toxic. This is nothing that I would worry about tho, the risk of dying or being injured on the way to the race is probably a much bigger issue than health risks caused by the racingfuel.

[llmaurice]

Thanks for the answers regarding Nascar fuel .
For what its worth , in the UK , we are under pressure to reduce/stop the production of sugar from beet as African countries cannot produce their cane sugar at a competitive price .
So--our local sugar beet plant in Norfolk (largest in Europe) has applied for planning tp produce etanol from the beet . Funny old world - what ?
Years ago , I spent all my formative years in Tottenham (North London) , an area that experienced some of the worst of the London fogs (with the resultant loss of life - unfortunately) This was largely overcome when coal useage was drastically reduced . My point is , that I have known a number of folks who had a reduced life span due (probably) to the constant fog but in my life , I have NEVER come across anyone who can associate loss of a loved one through LEAD !
I spent 3 years amongst the old 2.5 F1 cars with their heavily leaded fuels and also many years blowing out Mercedes (and other) road cars brake drums . I'm not proud of this as we know that asbestos is certainly not beneficial to the lungs etc. but now in my seventies (with asthma attributed to the developing and testing of diesel emission testers) , I still have many ex-colleagues still with us who led a similar life to myself bso it begs the question -are we all living in a Nanny state these days ?

[McGuire]

At one time lead poisoning was one of the leading occupational diseases, due to the universality of lead paint and coatings and lead plumbing -- the disorder was once known as "Plumbism." The symptoms were a characteristic blue stripe in the gums, water on the brain and central nervous system dysfunction and failure. Plumbism is one reason we don't have lead paint or plumbing anymore.

By far the most efficient way to absorb ordinary lead is respiratory rather than cutaneous or ingestion. However, the organic lead compounds (like TEL) will go straight through the skin like hot water through a teabag.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
But one should also remeber that if the lead was removed, something else must be added if the octane should be kept at the same level and the addition of for example aromatic hydrocarbons can be just as toxic.

Excellent point.

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by McGuire
At one time lead poisoning was one of the leading occupational diseases, due to the universality of lead paint and coatings and lead plumbing -- the disorder was once known as "Plumbism." The symptoms were a characteristic blue stripe in the gums, water on the brain and central nervous system dysfunction and failure. Plumbism is one reason we don't have lead paint or plumbing anymore.

By far the most efficient way to absorb ordinary lead is respiratory rather than cutaneous or ingestion. However, the organic lead compounds (like TEL) will go straight through the skin like hot water through a teabag.

My house still has lead paint on it in places (its real old).
I've scraped more lead paint then you would believe. Whole house has/had 14+ coats on it. Only way to scrape it is to melt it with basically a handheld oven element and scrape it off. Invariably it burns/smolders a lot.

I've inhaled a lot of that ****. But I've been tested for lead and had no measureable amount of it in my blood. I can't comment on lead pipes, but it seems to methe lead paint issue is non-existant.

Maybe I'm just lucky though.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Pioneer


My house still has lead paint on it in places (its real old).
I've scraped more lead paint then you would believe. Whole house has/had 14+ coats on it. Only way to scrape it is to melt it with basically a handheld oven element and scrape it off. Invariably it burns/smolders a lot.

I've inhaled a lot of that ****. But I've been tested for lead and had no measureable amount of it in my blood. I can't comment on lead pipes, but it seems to methe lead paint issue is non-existant.

Maybe I'm just lucky though.

It usually takes quite some time to get lead poisoning, this is also the case with the lead in the exhaust.

But there is also acute lead poisoning, that is possible to get if one for example swallow a lead-solution. TEL and similar is very dangerous as the body can take up the lead right through the skin, of that reason to use the right protection is very important when working with that stuff. Back in the days when TEL was first introduced in gasoline one production plant got the nickname "house of the big butterflies", since many of the people that work there where poisoned which led to hallucinations and in worst case death. Some of these organometallics can also penetrate conventional rubber gloves.

[Pioneer]

I've been living in this house for over 20 years.

Still nada.

[Bob Riebe]

Try surfing the web for information on racing gasoline if you want more information; I did awhile back whist looking for info on triptane, and at least one site said one of the major antis of unleaded racing gasoline is the cost of producing it.
Just like ethanol, it takes a lot more engergy to produce.

If you scan the variouos web site, there is one, (I did not save) that lists the type of racing gasoline available from near every Oil Company and the number of Leaded type far exceeds the number of unleaded types, plus there are no unleaded octane numbers (available commercially) that even come close the top numbers available in leaded fuel.

The fuel available from VP, which seems to have a type for near anything, for air racing has incredible numbers and uses no triptane.
Bob

[theunknowncomic]

Originally posted by McGuire
It seems highly dubious to me that leaded gasoline in NASCAR presents a direct and immediate health hazard to the spectators, unless they are licking the tailpipes after the race.

I was SURE I destroyed those photo's...

Damn.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by llmaurice
Thanks for the answers regarding Nascar fuel .
For what its worth , in the UK , we are under pressure to reduce/stop the production of sugar from beet as African countries cannot produce their cane sugar at a competitive price .
So--our local sugar beet plant in Norfolk (largest in Europe) has applied for planning tp produce etanol from the beet . Funny old world - what ?
Years ago , I spent all my formative years in Tottenham (North London) , an area that experienced some of the worst of the London fogs (with the resultant loss of life - unfortunately) This was largely overcome when coal useage was drastically reduced . My point is , that I have known a number of folks who had a reduced life span due (probably) to the constant fog but in my life , I have NEVER come across anyone who can associate loss of a loved one through LEAD !
I spent 3 years amongst the old 2.5 F1 cars with their heavily leaded fuels and also many years blowing out Mercedes (and other) road cars brake drums . I'm not proud of this as we know that asbestos is certainly not beneficial to the lungs etc. but now in my seventies (with asthma attributed to the developing and testing of diesel emission testers) , I still have many ex-colleagues still with us who led a similar life to myself bso it begs the question -are we all living in a Nanny state these days ?

In the late 1980s when the lead hysteria was at its height here in England, there was agreat deal of misinformation. I recall a childrens' poster campaign in Hamersmith: one poster showed a car belching smoke with the caption (which sent up a popular beer commmercial of the time): "I bet he uses leaded" This I thought was disgraceful - especially as I sought out and read papers at the time that demonstrated just how much more crude has to be run through the refinery to replace the lead. I doubt that the car-hating communists that occupy the Town Hall studied those papers and meanwhile they were content to allow the public to be misled.

PdeRL

[McGuire]

That's what makes environmental issues so difficult. The problems are incredibly complex, the solutions even moreso. Every decision involves major tradeoffs, both economic (the part the right won't accept) and environmental (the part the left can't understand). This is one area where sloganeering, simplistic answers and black/white adversarial politics won't work...but the democratic process being what it is, that's exactly what we get.

[soubriquet]

Certainly things aren't helped when the green industry uses half-truths based on selective misrepresentation of data to support an anti-car agenda.

You can go to the NOAA website here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa...re/current.html
and download the best historic data available. This is our oxygen isotope palaeothermometer. In ice, the isotopic composition varies mainly as a function of the temperature at which the (source) water evaporated. The Vostok core gives probably the clearest trace.




The 400 000 year trace shows the higher latitudes have been mostly cold. Lots of tundra and permafrost. It is global warming which allows us to occupy much of North America and Europe. Note that the current interglacial has lasted longer than most.




The 20Ka trace shows rapid deglaciation starting around 13Ka BP, a climatic optimum at around 9Ka BP, and a cooling trend, with some major excursions, since then.

To me, these data suggest that claims about "record" or "unprecedented" environmental changes are unsupportable. Certainly, there is a lot of alarmist tosh being endlessly recycled by the green lobby.


The IPCC report on climate change can be found here:
http://www.grida.no/...r/wg1/index.htm
The part I am qualified to judge would not have got past this reviewer, but I don't want to try everyone's patience, so I won't go on.

Cheers
S

[McGuire]

Originally posted by soubriquet
Certainly things aren't helped when the green industry uses half-truths based on selective misrepresentation of data to support an anti-car agenda.

Or when corporations, industries, "industry councils" (lobbying groups formed just for this purpose, with generous budgets to market their "ideas") use their own half-truths and misrepresentations to advance their agendas. So the public is confronted with two diamtetrically opposed sets of half-truths, one coming from each side. Two half-truths do not make one truth, eh.

[ray b]

is not MTBE a worse posion then lead??

race gas link
http://www.vpracingf...54C3C#specialty

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by ray b
is not MTBE a worse posion then lead??

race gas link
http://www.vpracingf...54C3C#specialty

MTBE isn't that dangerous. The problem with it that it can dissolve in water and get into the underground water where it can stay for a long time.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts91.html