Methanol

[Razor]

Why is the Champ Cars are using methanol as a fuel even though the fuel is more dangerous than petrol? Cause methanol is colour and odour less and burns an invisble flame, while petrol you can see, smell and see. A classic example of why methanol is more dangerous than petrol was today's race at the Gold Coast when REMOVED SPOLIER went out of pitlane while in the middle of doing a fuel stop and igniting the fuel, and caused a major incident in pitlane where most people where evacuating and dousing themselves in water, not knowing where the fire was due to the invisble flame. So, do you guys reckon methanol should stay or move to a safer fuel.

[dsg]

Methanol has a higher flash point than gasoline. In theory you should get less fuel fires.

[marcus]

could they not add something to the mixture to make the flame visible ?

[mountainstar]

greg read up on methanol. Is not "more dangerous" than petrol.

One only has to look at the explosive and horrific motor racing accidents involving gasoline that occured over the years maiming and killing drivers, spectators and team members.

They use methanol for the following reasons:

1. It is not an explosive like gasoline
2. It is harder to start a methanol fire compared to gasoline
3. It burns 'cooler'
4. Flames can be easily doused with water, you cannot do that with petrol.

Yes the flames are 'invisible' but they are obvious

[MCWB]

The other reason is that methanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, so you can run higher compression/higher boost.

[lookleft]

.

[FPV GTHO]

I dont know if you could do anything about it that wouldnt be a knee-jerk reaction. You could probably just as easily review the refueling equipment and the procedure for releasing the driver than revert to a more conventional fuel.

[browney]

Add to the advantages that it is a good platform to show to the petrol head crowed that biofuels can be high performance (as well as renewable and greenhouse gas neutral, I would push alcohol as the fuel of the future!). You wouldn't want to add something to colour the flame, the reason why methanol fire burns clear is because it doesn't produce soot.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by browney

You wouldn't want to add something to colour the flame, the reason why methanol fire burns clear is because it doesn't produce soot.

I dont think society is at the stage where we care more about the emissions of one racing serious over the well being of those involved in the series.

[Knowlesy]

It is far easier to put methanol out, which I suppose is most important.

Yes, it is invisible, but this is rarely a problem. It is not hard to tell when your arse is on fire.

[leaso]

Mate if that was a Petrol Fire today you would have seen massive Injury list to many people including the spectators on the other side of the fence.

Petrol is so volitile in its ignitions that it literaly explodes Meth on the other had under atmospheric conditions not so explosive.


Then you go the other way Meth needs a higher Comp ratio to burn at its best and produces on adverage about 100-200 ponies more than Petrol in a same spec motor with less compression.

The next thing is that Petro is a mainly oil based fuel which on contact to Skin will tend to obsorb into the skin allowing for a higher degree burn, were as Meth being Alcohol seems to sit on top of the skin not allowing the fire to penetrate the skin if you wish

Hope this helps a bit

[blueflagger]

There is a definite danger in that methonal flames are "invisible". I once had to physically prevent another marshal from putting his hands on a car that was on fire when he didn't believe me. But the driver knew it was on fire.

Methonal is great for racing. You can train people on how to look for methonal fires. But because of the invisibility problem, I don't think it will ever become a common fuel for road cars. In this case, it is ignorance that makes it a dangerous substance.

[blueflagger]

Oops, I want to explain that I wasn't intending to insult those who don't know how to look for a methonal fire. But on re-reading my post, I can see that it could be taken that way. Sorry if I offended anyone.

[thebear]

Originally Posted by Greg Barton

So, do you guys reckon methanol should stay or move to a safer fuel.

The I.R.L.'s '06 season's fuel is M90 - 90% Methanol & 10% Ethanol. CCWS may use the same blend. Starting in '07 E98, a blend of 98% Ethanol & 2% gasoline will PROBABLY be used in the I.R.L. That is what was tested at Daytona in SEP. The 2% gasoline was added to avert federal taxation when crossing state lines as ethanol is THE alcohol used in potable spirits such as American Whiskey and Bourbon.

[luke]

Put it this way, I certainly don't want ethanol!

[JimW]

Methanol is, in most ways, much safer than petrol.

One word of warning. Both are nasty poisons. Methanol is rather worse than petrol as far as absorption through the skin is concerned. Both should be avoided/prevented but really do worry if you get soaked in methanol. Strip, shower and seek treatment. Ditto petrol but the likelehood of damage is that bit less.

Regards

Jim

[mmciau]

Methanol has been used in "speedway" from about end of WWII.

Before that "anything" that would burn!

Very few drivers killed through methanol fires

Last one I recall immediately is "Swede" Savage at Indy 1973 - died some months later from bronchial damage after 'breathing" the fire.

Mike

[outflat]

Originally Posted by luke

Put it this way, I certainly don't want ethanol!

Why not?





Incidentally - while I've no qualms with methanol/ethanol or whatever, I do think ChampCar and Indycar need to look at their refuelling equipment.

A pitlane fire is a rare thing in F1, yet in IndyCar and ChampCar they happen several times a season and it never seems to be raised as a problem...

[blueflagger]

Ethanol doesn't contain as much energy by weight as petrol so racers are bound to dislike it.

[Jordi]

Methanol should stay unless some kind of bio- or enviromentally clean fuel could be found.

[Amar7605]

To me it seems that methanol is a lot better under real racing conditions than petrol. You don't see too many methanol fires anyways. Besides, both the IRL and Champ Car teams spray water at the fuel tank opening after the methanol has been added so that any spilled methanol will be dispersed.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by luke

Put it this way, I certainly don't want ethanol!

Why are you against ethanol? I think it's the way to go, because it's a non-fossil (hence "renewable") fuel. The motorsport should take its social responsibility by using non-fossil fuels and developing more fuel efficient solutions. This might attract new manufactures too.

[davemk7]

i remember watching cart a few years back and them saying that the only emision of methonol was water, i don't know if its true or not though, i always wanted to know? The fire was a bit scary looking but everybody involved dealt with it brilliantly. to me a petrol fire looks far more scary and are justa common if not more so??
http://www.wildonesonline.faketrix.c...e-race-car.jpg

[icemachine]

Pure methanol, burned completely produces water and carbon dioxide.

Methanol is usally derived from Natural gas, but it can be made from coal gas, biogas or fermentation and distillation

[mmciau]

Originally Posted by icemachine

Pure methanol, burned completely produces water and carbon dioxide.

Methanol is usally derived from Natural gas, but it can be made from coal gas, biogas or fermentation and distillation

I'm not sure about methanol from "fermentation" but certainly ethanol comes from any plant that ferments - it is the alcohol we consume in drink.

I was told that anything that grows and reacts with yeast will create fermentation/ethanol!!


Mike