15 to 1 Compression on Alky

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie said:
Anyone who uses methanol in a race bike when they’re not supposed to, or does not display the correct warning signs when they do, should be banned for life.

Methanol burns invisibly, so in the event of any crash they’d be putting themselves, other riders, and marshall’s in very real danger.

Anyone who does that has no place on a track.
Click to expand...

Fast Eddie
Invisible fire is indeed very dangerous. When my 850 monoshock was putting out good power - it started overheating. Methanol was the only solution. But not wanting to take the invisible fire risk - I found that you could add 25% racing fuel (up to about 30%) without having it fall out of suspension (it would not separate from the methanol). This way there was still color and smoke when it burned. The race gas also prevented the corrosion usually associated with straight methanol.

Ken
The thin spot at the pocket is where it burns through and yes it can burn through the exhaust side as well and that's what happened with your Omega pistons. I don't know the Omega pocket layout on a shortstroke. But with the current JE layout the intake pocket is closer to the top ring than the exhaust pocket. Even though it seems like the exhaust pocket should get hotter - the thin spot on the intake side seems to go 1st (with 13+ to 1 compression on gas etc). Or the area between the top ring and the deck will soften and distort.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
Anyone who uses methanol in a race bike when they’re not supposed to, or does not display the correct warning signs when they do, should be banned for life.

Methanol burns invisibly, so in the event of any crash they’d be putting themselves, other riders, and marshall’s in very real danger.

Anyone who does that has no place on a track.
Click to expand...

I've been going to road races and speedway in Australia since 1954 and I have never seen a methanol fire with a race bike. Methanol is less dangerous than petrol as far as starting a fire is concerned.. And once it is burning, it does not have a similar high calorific values, so the fire is lower temp.
 
johnm said:
yes. Random checks.

but I doubt anyone would cheat anyway- what is there to prove.
Click to expand...


It is not cheating to use methanol fuel when 'the rules' allow it. What is cheating is when you use a methanol / toluene / nitromethane mix. Methanol is much gentler on your motor than petrol, so the costs of racing are actually lower when you use it. The 730cc Jesser Triumph which Ken Blake raced in A grade always ran that nitro mix. His competition were riding 500cc methanol-fuelled Manxes, which were still quick enough to win - so nobody ever objected. I was in the pits next to Bill Horsman at Calder Raceway years ago and he was borrowing my funnel etc. He had the hydrometer in the methanol. I said 'you are a bit rude with that'. He said ' you have to get them going somehow' - nitro in a 250cc two-stroke ?
 
Al, maybe you have different rules down there... Here in the U.K. we have ACU rules. Most classes of road racing do not allow methanol. To use methanol in those classes is wrong. Some classes do allow it, but the bikes using it have to display a specific methanol sticker on their race plates to warn others in the event of a fire. To use methanol in those classes and not display a sticker is wrong. It’s quite straightforward really.
 
Last edited:
Our rules are easy. Clubmans class petrol.

Modified class petrol or methanol.

Tanks and all storage drums to be clearly labeled methanol. Fire extinguishers required in the pits

I think most people in modified run methanol because as you say it’s kind on the motor and easy to use. Depending on gas prices it can also be cheaper
 
acotrel said:
so the fire is lower temp.
Click to expand...

I feel so much better knowing that Al.

15 to 1 Compression on Alky
 
I was once caught in a laboratory fire with petroleum ether. I would much rather fight a methanol fire. The problem with a methanol fire on a motorcycle, is you cannot see it. So the track marshals are unlikely to react quickly enough. With a motorcycle, you don't sit inside the fuel load as you do with many racing cars. When I last raced, I was beside and passing the leader when the fuel line came adrift. I had methanol all over the motor - it did not catch fire. But with petrol, the flash-point is lower - I don't think I would have got away with it..
 
Last edited:
There is video somewhere on Youtube which shows a race car in the 1930s having a methanol fire. The fellas were jumping around slapping themselves due to an invisible fire. But it is a very unlikely scenario in motorcycle racing. We don't usually let fuel flow all over the bike with the motor running, when we are filling the tank.
 
From Wikipedia:
Methanol is far more difficult to ignite than gasoline and burns about 60% slower. A methanol fire releases energy at around 20% of the rate of a gasoline fire, resulting in a much cooler flame. This results in a much less dangerous fire that is easier to contain with proper protocols. Unlike gasoline fires, water is acceptable and even preferred as a fire suppressant for methanol fires, since this both cools the fire and rapidly dilutes the fuel below the concentration where it will maintain self-flammability. These facts mean that, as a vehicle fuel, methanol has great safety advantages over gasoline.

But still not fully convinced I'd like to put my finger in a Methanol fire as it also states that the peak temperature of a Methanol fire is 1870 C:(
 
Petrol releases much more energy than methanol, weight for weight. In fires where there is a lot of solvent, the immediate release of heat determines whether you can fight the fire. With methanol in an enclosed space, you would have a hope - not with petrol. I think Dave Simmonds was the guy who died in the caravan fire. But you would not wash parts in methanol anyway.

https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesoci...g/dave-simmonds-britains-last-125-world-champ
 
Staytite said:
From Wikipedia:
Methanol is far more difficult to ignite than gasoline and burns about 60% slower. A methanol fire releases energy at around 20% of the rate of a gasoline fire, resulting in a much cooler flame. This results in a much less dangerous fire that is easier to contain with proper protocols. Unlike gasoline fires, water is acceptable and even preferred as a fire suppressant for methanol fires, since this both cools the fire and rapidly dilutes the fuel below the concentration where it will maintain self-flammability. These facts mean that, as a vehicle fuel, methanol has great safety advantages over gasoline.

But still not fully convinced I'd like to put my finger in a Methanol fire as it also states that the peak temperature of a Methanol fire is 1870 C:(
Click to expand...

What is more important than the peak temperature, is the time it takes to get there. With petrol, it is instantaneous. Methanol takes more heat to get it to evaporate. So it is slower to get really hot.
 
Al, hit rock bottom and continue to dig. We get the science behind petrol and methanol.

Somewhere in the 60s or 70s the predecessor to the Indy Racing League (IRL) outlawed methanol as a race fuel after a spectacular chain wreck. I remember watching (on tv) fire marshals tending to putting out flames on a car while the driver who had exited the car began dancing around on fire. I think it took the driver a few more milliseconds to figure it out and unfortunately the fire marshals were really focused on the burning car. It took a awhile for them to figure it out and put out the drivers flames. Good thing the fire was a lower temp
 
As I said - the solution is to add 25% race gas to methanol and you have the best of everything. This is my favorite racing fuel (though not exactly legal).

If you add more than 30% the gas starts to fall out of suspension (begins to separate).

Don't be afraid to think out of the box.
 
jseng1 said:
As I said - the solution is to add 25% race gas to methanol and you have the best of everything. This is my favorite racing fuel (though not exactly legal).

If you add more than 30% the gas starts to fall out of suspension (begins to separate).

Don't be afraid to think out of the box.
Click to expand...

The usual solution to the problem of separation is to add about 5% of acetone, to get the mix to blend. What you are suggesting is the idea behind the old pre-WW2 blends of benzene, methanol and acetone. With 50% of methanol, you still get the supercharging effect with minimal reduction in efficiency and the benzene or other hydrocarbon provides the calories. If I was doing it, I would use toluene which has almost zero health effects.
The trouble with doing that stuff, is you need some way of handling large amounts of solvents accurately. Otherwise your attempts at tuning become more complicated.
 
These days I am not serious enough about racing to play with fuel mixes. Using straight methanol is a soda, one you have tuned the bike. It helps if you do your tuning on a cool day. Then if the weather heats up the mixture becomes richer. That way you can always race without mucking around with the carbs. With methanol, if the mixture is slightly rich the effect on power is minimal. That is not the case with gasoline.
 
Please don't mess around with Benzene it is a Class-A carcinogen, it's been an additive to the Navy's jet fuel (JP-5) for quite some time- I was told that it was added to promote a cleaner burn, helping to keep the combustion section of the turbines going longer before rebuilds. For us though Leukemia is not good.
 
cjandme said:
Please don't mess around with Benzene it is a Class-A carcinogen, it's been an additive to the Navy's jet fuel (JP-5) for quite some time- I was told that it was added to promote a cleaner burn, helping to keep the combustion section of the turbines going longer before rebuilds. For us though Leukemia is not good.
Click to expand...

It appears that the armed forces do not give a flying dog shit about the side effects to life of anything that they do to improve equipment life!
 
The methanol blends which contained benzene such as BP JA and JB - and the Shell equivalents, went out of production in about 1970. Toluene is just as good and doesn't have the same nasty health effects. It is also aromatic and has a similarly high calorific value. With a blend you get the benefit of the high latent heat of vaporisation and you also have something there besides the methanol which can provide energy. But if you cannot control the fuel mixture components accurately, your jetting would have to be adjusted very often.
With the Navy, I've known a couple of guys who died of mesothelioma because they have been in ships when the pipes were being lagged with asbestos. It was so thick in the air, they could not see across the compartment in the ship. The defence forces' mentality is strange, however these days they have moved a bit more towards managing the risks. For 200 years in Australia, safety in government businesses was controlled through prescriptive legislation rather then performance based. - Not good places in which to work , especially if you were doing anything which was 'cutting edge'. But our private industry was probably worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top