Can both of you elaborate on why Trick 114 is Cr@p fuel?
I have been running it for 5 years now with absolutly 0 issues in both a TApex and a Vertical Assault with 14.7/1 compression and a full race port.
I have been through 15 barrels of it again with 0 issues.
I heard that it can be a bit finicky to jet on triples.
What specific issues are you having?
Sap
I have had several motors detonate on Trick 114 that would not running either Sunoco 112 or VP C12. Jetting was adjusted for conditions and it still deto'd. I have been building high performance two stroke engines since 1996 and have ran the gamut of fuel testing (along with mix oils) to understand how they function in my engines. In those years of experience I have found Trick 114 falling short in a direct comparison to other fuels rated at/near the same values. I have found that if we ran the engines on the richer side- and not dialed in tight and making good heat (and power) we could get by with Trick. It is also possible to have an engine not running nearly as efficiently (lower trapping ratio, lower cylinder filling ratios) that can withstand lower octane fuels. A good example- an engine with a stock mild single pipe- octane X may function. Throw a set of twins on it and now octane X detonates. The efficiency and the state of tune has gotten high(er) enough to create problems.
Two things I look for in a fuel- a high motor octane rating and a smaller delta between the motor and research numbers.
Motor octane number/MON = relevant real world octane rating. The rating is derived from the test engine under high loads and hot coolant and air intake temps.
Research octane number/RON = perfect world octane rating. The test engine is not very loaded and coolant temps and intake temps are low(cold).
Most pump fuels are rated as M + R/2 The average of MON and RON. Sometimes expressed as PON (pump octane number).
-VP C12 is my favorite fuel- it has withstood wicked high compression ratios and lots of timing advance. Its MON is rated at 108. VP doesnt list a RON. Trick advertises their with their RON- seems a bit interesting dichotomy ...
-Sunoco 112 has a MON of 110 and a RON of 114. PON 112
-Trick 114 has a MON of 106 and a RON of 114. PON 110
The bigger the delta in the MON to RON the more likely the chemical soup of the fuel was built around just getting a good number...
Other considerations I give to fuel are the distillation curve values and the Reid Vapor Pressure. The distillation curve to me can tell me how good of throttle response a fuel may have and some idea of its chemical soup. If the values on the curve are somewhat evenly spaced and the end point is not overly high- then that fuel typically gives best all around performance. If the end point is exceptionally high- like Sunoco 110 is(NOT the 112 supreme) at 384* that tells me they dumped a bunch of branched hydrocarbons(olefins and aromatics- read stuff like toluene, xylene, MTBE, etc- the chemical soup) to simply raise the octane rating without much consideration to performance (the curve). RVP comes into play as to how well a fuel evaporates- evaporative cooling is very important in an engine.
I have recently been testing the R-Tech fuels with good sucess in 4 stroke 450cc MX engines. I have not been able to test it to my liking in the 2 stroke stuff yet so I cant comment on how it works. However with the 4 stroke stuff it has shown favorable results as it is oxygenated (1%). Tested directly against Sunoco 110 on the dyno we made 2% more power. That is a very slight increase (2HP on 45HP motor) but it was free power really- the fuel costs the same per gallon.
to answer nathanken's ? trick is some of the cheapest fuel around. 
