Conference oass::racers

    Intresting thoughts, Fuel at the moment seems to be a bit of a hot
    potatoe in the Uk. Some of the problem stems from the interpretation of
    pump gas. I personally use leaded  pump gas ( ie: I buy it in
    a petrol station on the way to the track) . However the pump gas
    question seems to be the root of the evil, but I think the wording has
    or is being changed to something like 'road side filling station'. It
    seems to be common practice to mix 50% AVGAS with 50% leaded. There are
    other brews that get mixed in making god know what. In last bullitin
    from out wonderfull motor sport association ( RACMSA ) that more than a 
    handfull of people we taken before the tribunal for use of illegal
    fuel. When fuels are open , ie: you use whatever and hope you don't get
    caught , the question of special brews of just palin old illegal fuel
    will always be there but if all fuel to a given specification is
    supplied at each track the problem is less likly. My felling is that 
    supplied fuel cuts down the chance of cheating. I would be in favour of
    a standard fuel,provided that the cost was not silly. Also If everyone
    uses a standard gas that the green people like it does motorsport a
    favour.
    
    
    Garry
    

As a point of clarity, I'm "just a fan", not an active racer.

Your idea is lousy.  On the one hand a "green" approach to racing has merit
and I think it should be integrated into the sport.  Reducing the costs of
racing is a reasonable goal, but not a simple one.  However, at least in the
short term these goals must certainly be at odds with one another.  There is
incredible diversity in the sport and hence each sanctioning group needs to
consider how it can become "socially responsible" without the sort of Draconian
legislation you propose.  Motorsports history has shown that establishing
arbitrary and poorly conceived rules, across the board at that, seldom has the
desired effect.  IMHO the sort of legislation you are proposing would have an
overall negative impact on the sport.

Some categories of the sport bear no relation to street environments and
therein lies the appeal!  For both racers and spectators!  I shudder when I
think of the implications of your proposal for drag racing George.  You must
truly have a vendetta against it.

Gee, this sounds very much like something FISA would do.  Are you running a
fever George?      :^) * N

Just one guys opinion.

- Nate

re: last

Hi, Nate.

I've no vendetta at all against drag racing.  I like it!  Perhaps I've misstated
my proposal in some way.  All I'm proposing is to replace nitromethane (which 
is >$50/bbl. I think, and toxic as all get-out, and currently out of production)
with methanol.  You'll still get lots of power out of those blown Keith Black 
hemis, maybe not 5500 hp like now, but more than your average Civic :-) .  
Nate, I ask in ignorance: would it make that much of a difference?  I don't 
follow the drags that much, but I know when I was a kid, the floppers and rails
ran on alcohol.  Doesn't IHRA still have an alcohol equivalent of TF?

As for legislation, well, I envisioned this as an agreement among the various 
US sanctioning bodies, not a law.  But now that you mention it, the Clean Air 
Act of 1990 gives the EPA broad power to regulate fuel usage.  I suppose the
extended racing community can wait to see what the bureaucrats in Washington
will decide is proper racing fuel, or we can get out ahead of the curve and 
make our own way.  Frankly, I think the latter is the only viable option.

Besides, in five years, they'll be back to running sub-5 sec. ETs anyway.
Racers are pretty smart -- give 'em a limit and they'll try like hell to break
it. 

re: all

     While this would seem a noble concept, I think that you'll find that it
would not practically happen.  Primarily, you're dealing with too many diverse
sanctioning bodies.  These groups have vastly different backgrounds and goals.
Secondarily, the higer performance fuels also reduce some of the bad things
that happen inside the engine.  The additional costs of toughening a particular
engine for a particular task would probably prove prohibitive.  For example,
I've used Avgas and octane boosters to prevent knocking under hard acceleration
while slaloming my GLH Turbo.  I'd rather whip up a hybrid mix than pay for the
engine to be rebuilt (and, no, I'm not comparing slaloming/auto-x/gymkhana to
what you might term "real racing;" but I have seen A LOT OF BUCKS put into a
car setup for auto-x before).

     I suspect that you will see this type change when/if there is some sort
of "federal mandate" that forces the change. Then prepare for frequent cheating
and protesting.  Essentially, I'd think that you would end having a "racing
gestapo" who had to search any- and everything that the racer brings to the
track.  Ultimately, IMHO, you would see the resurgence of a very different
form of outlaw competition.

    
       I'm a Dragracer (part-time)and a consumer of 112 Octane race gas
    (Cam2 or Turbo-Blue). Many of us racers would have to spend large
    amounts of money to convert our engines to Unleaded gas (since that's
    all that is available at the pump) unless you're proposing leaded gas. 
       As Nate said, you would kill drag racing. Almost all of the classes
    use high compression (compared to today's cars)pistons and non-hardened
    valve seats. Unleaded fuels under race loads would equal disaster. 
       I also disagree with eliminating Fuel (nitro-methane) cars. Now
     they have both Fuel Dragsters/Funny cars and Alcohol (methanol)
     dragsters /Funnycars. Your proposal would eliminate the
    Nitro-Methane Fuel cars that I believe are the most exciting to
    fans, sponsors and racers alike. I also believe that Drag Racing
    is not affected as much by fuel "altering" as in some other sanctions.
        On the positive side, I agree with you on having designated
    supplier(s) to provide fuel to all racers at each track (maybe
    different suppliers at each) at a fair price!! One supplier would 
    probably take advantage of the situation and raise the price.
    Also, the speeds and safety are major concerns, but you can't take
    away the identity of each auto form. Otherwise you'll lose the fans
    and the financial support.
    
        Maybe someone else has some alternative ideas. Sorry, I don't.
    
        Scott
    

RE: .3

>hemis, maybe not 5500 hp like now, but more than your average Civic :-) .  

Gee, my Civic 1200 racer is fairly average, and I'm getting 6000 
easy on pure pump gas ... or anyway, I've been accused of it!   ;)

--Lil

    There's a note (3778.3) in the FLYING conference that claims the Clean
    Air Act bans the production of leaded gasoline, outright, after 1995. 
    This may change the terms of the debate a little, from "should we do
    it" to "how do we implement the law."

    No mention was made of nitromethane, however :-)

    ok, I'll weigh in with a vote for the proposal, if only to balance
    things.
    
    I think some of the arguments advanced (especially cost implications)
    are at least arguable if not downright specious.  I'm not sure I can
    see much difference between the cost of learning how to deal with a spec
    fuel and the cost of learning how to tweak the last fractional hp out
    of a restrictor-plate NASCAR mill, or how to keep a 5000 hp blown nitro
    fueler from hand-grenading.  There is some cost associated with each of
    those, substituting one for another changes the equation but may not
    change the bottom line all that much.  At least, to offer a convincing
    argument that it might you must include a realistic comparision of all
    the costs (full lifecycle, not just development) for each alternative,
    which I haven't seen yet.
    
    There seemed to me to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions in the past
    responses, reflecting emotion not objective analysis.  There were
    several that seemed to boil down to "it would gore my own ox so I don't
    like it" which is reasonable but shouldn't be convincing.  There was an
    argument or two saying it might be difficult to make work, which to me
    is a reason it needs careful consideration and design, but not a reason
    it's a bad idea.
    
    Basically, I liked a couple of aspects about it.  It rationalizes a
    major ugliness in the rules for one of our leading series, by allowing
    NASCAR to get rid of restrictor plates and get back to racing.  It
    defines a fairly simple and easily tested parameter within which there
    can be a fair amount of freedom for each engine builder to develop
    their own technology.  And it is environmentally and socially
    responsible, which helps to defuse the biggest vulnerability of our
    sport today.
    
    I don't think the primary danger is that the EPA or the Greens will ram
    this mandate down our throats sometime in the future, it's more that
    racing will be characterized in the minds of many as a selfish and
    irresponsible activity (how many of the previous replies to this topic
    fit that description?).  That image not only undermines this particular
    aspect of the sport, it makes it a lot tougher to resist sound control,
    sponsorship restrictions, and all the other political assaults we are
    already beginning to experience.  When the first oil shortage came
    along the powers that be in racing took pro-active steps to defuse
    crictism because they recognized the importance of the overall image of
    the sport, this suggestion seems to me to fit right into the same
    benefits.
    
    FWIW, we looked into AvGas, octane boosters, and CAM2 and other racing
    gasolines when we first got into FF.  High-octane pump gas was
    reportedly acceptable, we generally decided to be cautious and stick
    with the racing gas.  Even LL AvGas was said to have about ten times
    the lead of MoGas, so we decided that was not a good idea.  Octane
    boosters were found to consist primarily of carcinogens classified as
    hazardous (having a member of the medical community on the team was a
    mixed blessing) so we stayed away from them.  Personally, I'd have no
    real problems with running under rules that required the engine
    builders to build engines to run on pump gas instead of requiring me to
    pay $4 to $5 per gallon.
    
    Any series with rules governing engines has some arbitrary regulations,
    this one is as reasonable as any.  I think it would be tolerable, even
    if it was only adopted by NASCAR and maybe a few other sanctioning
    bodies.  Heck, especially if it were adopted by NASCAR as a replacement
    for restrictor plates I'd have no problems with it...

    
      Re .8
    
        You are right. I was one of the people that jumped before
    I looked. I guess I was a little selfish when I defended Dragracing.
        After thinking about fuels and discussing it with some other
    people, I agree that maybe rules for use of Standard Pump gas
    would benefit all of us (especially our kids) in the long run. I
    don't like paying $4.25 per gallon for Cam2 but it's easier to justify
    right now, instead of $400-600 for pistons and head work..........
    
         If the rules makers can implement these changes without jamming
    them down our throats in a short period of time, then I will change
    my vote from a definate NO to a YES.   I ALSO would like to see
    NASCAR without the restrictor plates.
    
         Changed my mind,
    
         Scott
                                                  

    
    It seems to me that many of us are approaching this from different
    perspectives.  Which is of course only to be expected given the diversity
    of backgrounds, interests and invovlements that people bring to this
    conference.  And that itself is to my puny little mind a reflection of the
    sorts of problems that might be expected if the original proposal put 
    forth by George where implemented.
    
    George's proposal was Methanol or 92 octane pump gas.  That's it, for ALL
    racing across the US.
    
    I agree, the intent of the proposal is unquestionably meritorious. 
    From technical and cost/benefit perspecitves the proposal may indeed be
    readily assimilated by many catagories of the sport.  BUT, the proposal
    left NO ROOM for CHOICE.  Therein lies the problem for me.  Those
    catagories and sanctioning groups that can reasonably fall in line
    ought to be encouraged to do so.  Those that can't ought not to be banned!
    They ought to be given oppurtunities to consider how to make some other
    concession or contribution that recognizes their uniqueness.
    
    Yes, I did have an "emotional response" as regards the implications for
    drag racing.  Top Fuel, Funny Car and Pro Modified (gasoline + nitrous
    oxide boost) are to my puny little mind the most interesting classes in
    drag racing and George's original proposal reflects zero tolerance for
    them.  Gone, banished.  Sould the sportsman classes fall in line with the
    proposal, as it is likely they could, the loss of the above three classes
    would still be enormously devasting to drag racing.
    
    I've got to believe that elsewhere in the broad spectrum of motorsport
    some other catagory(s) of racers would also have to pack it in due to
    the mandatory nature of the proposal.  You or I might not think it a
    loss, but surely some people will.
    
    Yes, I *do* believe a "greener" approach to racing is required.  Yes, I
    *do* believe that the environmental issue casts motorsports in a bad light
    to John Q. Public.  (Bruce, I disagree with you, I believe motorsports'
    longstanding alliance/reliance on the tobacco industry is more threatening
    to motorsport than the environmental issue.)  But please, leave room to
    consider what is appropriate and managable toward the acheiving the
    objective.  Please, consider solutions that are not all or nothing.
    
    Must everyone take the same road to get to the destination?
    
    - Nate, an unrepentant knee-jerker

    At first I was not going to reply, but here I am. From a different
    perspective, how about the regulation and inspection of fuels, ie; how
    would you control cheating. I race karts, the one's with the 2-stroke
    screamers. Now while these may not be SCCA cars, modifieds, drags etc,
    we have gone though many years of fuel regulation. Originally, to keep
    costs down, there were classes designed for "pump gas" only. Of course,
    some racers decided that by adding a little methanol, you would gain an
    advantage. Thus the rules makers came up with some simple "water"
    tests. But the racers got smarter, and brought in the chemists, and the
    rules makers got smarter and brought in electronic fuel analayzers
    (sp), and the racers got smarter, brought back their chemists and
    finally for the world championships this year at Daytona, all top 5
    finishers were required to submit their fuel, for infarred analysis.
    The policing of fuels IS a nightmare. 
    
    Pump gas. We had to stop using pump gas many years back, because of the
    additives. Methanol, injector cleaning chemicals, octane controlers,
    clean burn etc.... So, we all HAD to use chemicial gas, CAM-2, Union
    etc... some of these bear little resemblance to "gas". 
    
    SO, the intent to control fuel and engine costs, turned into a
    specially built engine to run $4.00 gas. I can get methanol for $2.00
    or less...  So now my unlimited, fully modified, methanol-nitro fire
    breather, 15,000 RPM screamer costs less that my "controlled" motor.
    
    What does work? Pump around, that is fuel supplied by the track at the
    track. Can racers still cheat? Yup, 2 (known) ways. One is by having a
    false fuel tank inside of your fuel cell, filled of course with illegal
    fuel. The legal fuel surrounds the false cell. The tech inspectors draw
    off the legal fuel for inspection. Smart tech inspectors are always a
    must.
    
    Second is dry compounds. After receiving the pump around from the
    track, certain dry additives can be added to gain an advantage. But
    these can be detected by a post race inspection.
    
    I do think that there needs to be controls. Track supplied methanol.
    Spot checks at tech inspection for potential cheaters.
    
    I also feel that there should be classes for those who want and can
    afford to run whatever. That IS part of racing. 
                                                    

    I agree with fuel regulation but it would appear that my prospective on
    the subject is somewhat different to you guys in the states. I would
    agree that the regulation is not by any means  easy. On the other 
    hand I don't know what anti racing factions you have over there and
    what effect they really make on racing. Here in the UK Green people
    make a lot of noise and there are ears that listen . Fuel is not the
    only thing at the moment, noise is another problem that is being looked
    at. Tracks face closure if they do not keep the noise down.
    
    	I think that were possible, the use of a standard fuel should be 
    	encouraged, if nothing else for enviromental reasons. I aggree that for
    	drag racing 89 octane unleaded fuel would not exactly do much for
        the character of the sport .  For us in the UK where nitros and
        methenol are not used greatly in track racing ( not supossed to be)
    	so the use of unleaded would be less of a problem.
    
    
    	My Feeling is where possible the use of environmentally friendly
    	fuel should be activly encouraged. Some of the additives that get 
    	put into fuel are none too friendly to plastic and skin, what do
    	the fumes to to the environment or even the spectators. Again where
    	possible would it not be better to get the most of the engine by
    	means of development rather that make it breath fire.  Don't think
    	I'm having a dig at drag racing , I'm not . Drag racing by its very 
    	nature uses these fuels and it would be stupid to suggest any
    	different. The more proactive motorsport is in matters green , the
    	better it is for motorsport generally.
    
    
    	Garry

.10>    (Bruce, I disagree with you, I believe motorsports'
.10>    longstanding alliance/reliance on the tobacco industry is more 
.10>    threatening to motorsport than the environmental issue.)  
    
    Sorry if I made myself unclear.  Or maybe I'm not clear on what you
    mean, Nate.
    
    I think one of the biggest threats to motorsports is the cost and how
    it is met.  The alliance/reliance with tobacco is important or even
    vital in that regard, and it is a vulnerability.  I don't want to get
    into whether it is desirable or not, it is presently a necessary fact
    of life.  Alcohol-related sponsorship is a similar situation, perhaps
    the issue of desirability is less serious but it's still real.  The
    current social trends make it very possible that one and possibly both
    of these funding sources will be eliminated, and that would jeopardize
    our sport seriously.
    
    Another serious threat to the sport is the availability of venues and
    the health of grass-roots motorsports.  Cost is a part of this also, so
    it is afffected by the other issue.  Part of that cost, and an
    independent issue as well, is the environmental concern.  Noise limits
    have already put tracks out of business, prevented new ones, and made
    existing tracks less profitable.  Pollution is another issue that we've
    never addressed very well.  The less specific and tangible issue of
    unproductive use of resources is not a serious point of attack (at
    least not yet) but it certainly is a factor in public perception of the
    sport.  All of these make this a serious threat to the health of the
    sport.
    
    I can't really say which of those is more important.  I think it
    depends on how you look at the sport.  I know that the issue around
    tobacco and even alcohol has very little direct effect on literally
    thousands of grassroots racers (my friends and competitors), while we
    are already directly impacted by the environmental issues that limit
    the amount and quality of our track time.  I think we could lose all
    the headline pro series and there would still be amateur racing, but
    I'm not sure we could lose amateur racing and still maintain the pro
    series.  So I guess on that basis, the alcohol and tobacco involvement
    seems a little less vital although perhaps more immediate and specific.
    Both issues revolve around public perceptions and political and social
    trends, so I'd say whatever can be done to manage and improve those
    images is important.  That's why both issues are critical, and very
    much so.

    I'd say replace gas with gas wherever possible but leave the alky
    burners and nitro burners out of it particularly in drag racing. Making
    all nitro or alky burners switch to gas boils down to wiping out
    classes and competition.
    
    Stan

Article: 8414
Path: shodha.enet.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!zazen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!meaddata!msw
From: [email protected] (Michael Walpole)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Re: Exotic Fuels
Keywords: nitromethane kaboom
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 1 Jul 91 22:42:41 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 62
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David Cornutt) writes:
 
|> I got curious because of something that I heard on the tube last
|> weekend.  I had an IHRA race on my tape after the Grand National race,
|> and I watched some of it.  One thing that they made a big deal out of is
|> that there is a shortage of nitromethane, and the NHRA and IHRA are
|> having trouble getting adequete supplies.  Apparently the plant that
|> is the leading U.S. producer of the stuff (a place somewhere in
|> Louisiana) blew up last winter.  Now they are having to do engine
|> warmups and test runs with methanol, and the IHRA is saying that if
|> it gets worse they will start doing qualifying runs with 50-50
|> meth and nitro to conserve the remaining supply.
 
There was and explosion in a nitroparafin distilation tower at the
Angus Chemical Co.'s plant in Sterlington, Louisiana on May 1, 1991.
The explosion killed 8 and injured 120+.  The Angus facility produced
about 80% of the worlds supply of nitromethane.  Nitroparafins are
used to produce nitromethane, nitropropane, and nitroethane.  Angus is
rebuilding the facility and part of it is back on line, but the supply
of nitromethane will not return to what it was until next spring.
 
The WR Gace Co. has a facility in Houston, TX that produces
nitromethane, but they can't make Angus made even by maximizing their
production.  The Chinese are importing nitromethane, but it's only 87%
pure and it is higher in water and acid content.  Plus the Chinese
nitro is more expensive.
 
As far as I know, the only race cars that use nitromethane are Funny
Cars, and Top Fuel dragsters.  The going rate for nitromethane was
about $1500/55 gal. drum before the explosion, or about $30/gallon.  A
Top Fueler or a Funny Car uses about 20 gallons of the stuff to start
the car, do the burnout and make their run.  10 gallons of nitromethane
is used during the 5 second run.  (Try emptying a 10 gallon bucket of
water in 5 seconds sometime!)
 
Some of the Sprint Cars used to use nitromethane, but that was before
they changed from 302cu.in. to 350cu.in engines.  Nitromethane is also
used in Model Airplane fuel and in Ulcer medicine.  (Honest to God, I
looked it up!)  Nitromethane will not mix with gasoline, but
nitroethane will.  About 20 - 30 years ago nitrobenzene used to be
popular as a gasoline additive until it was found to cause cancer.
Nitropropane will work as a substitute for nitromethane, but only in
small percentages.  (15% nitropropane works like 10% nitromethane.)
 
It is doubtful that the drag racers will change the percentage of
nitro in the middle of an event because a nitro motor is different
from an alcohol motor.  Alcohol burns best at 7 parts air to 1 part
alcohol.  Nitromethane burns best at 1 part air to 1 part nitro.
Nitromethane produces oxygen when it burns, so it is self sustaining
fuel.  That is why nitromethane produces so much horsepower.  To even
change from 50 - 50 nitro/alcohol fuel to 100% nitro takes a different
motor because the compression ratio, the timing and the fuel injection
all have to change.
 
Nitromethane does not start burning very easily.  It is hard to get it
lit.  Throw a match in a bucket of nitro and the match will probably
go out.  Once its lit, it's a bitch to put it out.  
_________________________________________________________________
 Mike Walpole     |      This space       |      [email protected]
 Mead Data Central|     accidentally      |...!uunet!meaddata!msw
 Miamisburg, OH   |      left blank!      |
(513)865-1086     |                       |

Article: 625
Path: shodha.enet.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!looking!clarinews
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.sports.motor,clari.sports.features
Subject: Advance weekend, July 27-28
Keywords: motor sports, men's professional
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:43:17 GMT
Lines: 73
Approved: [email protected]
Xref: shodha.enet.dec.com clari.sports.motor:625 clari.sports.features:351
Location: california, louisiana
ACategory: sports
Slugword: sportsbiz
Priority: regular
Format: feature
ANPA: Wc: 593; Id: s0917; Sel: ns--s; Adate: 7-25-435ped; Ver: adv2728
Codes: ysapfxx., ysapfca., ysapfla.
Note: (600)
 

	SONOMA, Calif. (UPI) -- The explosion at a Louisiana refinery last May
has thrown a wrench into the sport of drag racing.
	The disaster at the ANGUS Chemical Co. plant in Sterlington, La.,
wiped out the major worldwide supplier of nitro methane fuel, the
lifeblood of drag racing. Now, the price of fielding a car for the 18-
event, $18 million National Hot Rod Association circuit is up by at
least $11,000.
	The cost may not seem great, but it represents added economic
pressure in a sport where many owners are battling for survival.
	``The impact really depends on how deep you pockets are,'' said Steve
Gibbs, the NHRA's vice president of competition. ``For the teams
operating on a tight budget it has had a big impact.''
	The price of nitro methane -- a more explosive fuel than gasoline --
has climbed since the explosion from about $900 a barrel to $1,600. On
average, a car will go through an entire 55-gallon barrel during one
race.
	And while there still is fuel available -- from a plant in Texas and
two small refineries in China -- the cost has been a product of supply
and demand.
	``Drag racing only accounts for about 10 percent of the market for
nitro methane,'' Gibbs said. ``So we've been at the mercy of the demand
from the other 90 percent of the marketplace.''
	Besides fuel for dragsters, nitro methane is used in the production
of pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of agricultural chemicals and to
make explosives.
	Even with this demand, owner-driver Kenny Bernstein says it's been
the price, not scarcity of product, that has many concerned.
	``There hasn't been a shortage yet,'' he said. ``Everybody has all
the fuel they need. But the cost has gone out of sight and in many ways
that's worse than if there was an actual shortage.''
	The uncertain nature of the price and supply of fuel, however, has
not altered the way the NHRA runs its events.
	``We are feeling our way along, but we haven't had to make any
changes yet,'' Gibbs said. ``The racers really don't want to make any
less runs, but if the price continues to climb we are going to have to
really look at how to hold down costs.''
	Bernstein, who heads the Professional Racing Organization, says his
owners group has recommended to the NHRA that they reduce by one the
number of runs at each event.
	``We're also looking at other ways to conserve like working up using
alcohol fuel,'' he said. ``Hopefully, with these measures in place we
can make it until the Angus plant comes back on line.''
	But the drag race owners still have a ways to go this year. After
this week's stop in Sonoma, Calif., the NHRA circuit has five more races
before ending its season with the Winston Final at Pomona, Calif., on
Oct. 24-27. And there is also the International Hot Rod Association
circuit which has 10 events left after this week's race in LaRue, Ohio.
	ANGUS expects to have its plant in limited production by early
January.
	``We are doing what we call a fast track restart,'' said Bob
Frederick, ANGUS' vice president for sales. ``We expect to be at 50 to
75 percent by early next January, but won't be in full production until
August 1992.''
	Said Gibbs: ``There is a lot of racing left before we get the Angus
plant back. But hopefully once we get through this season, the price
will go down and the crisis will be over.''


This, and all articles in this news hierarchy are Copyright 1991 by the wire 
service or information provider and licenced to Clarinet Communications 
Corp.  for distribution.  Except for free samples, only paid subscribers 
may access these articles.  Any unauthorized access, reproduction or 
transmission is strictly prohibited.  We will reward the first provider of 
information that helps us stop violators of this copyright.  Send reports 
to [email protected].  

    re - .9 
    
    4+ a gallon for CAM2?  Here in the Cincinnati area CAM2 is $3.20!  Must
    be the cost of living...or taxes?