[F500] Engines and all sorts of controversy

[Jeff Blumenthal]

  FWIW...here's another "vote"/opinion:
  I just bought a used 494 at the end of the season and will install it 
over the winter. No, I'm not thrilled to hear of the uncertainty 
regarding engine choices. I have no objection to having the new 493 
engine tested regionally. That's about the only way to determine what 
advantage, if any, it has. Then, if approved, it is incumbent on the 
SCCA (an us F500 racers) to assure parity by weight penalty or other 
means. I appreciate those who are putting $$ into the testing phase, 
even though there are no guarantees that their investment will pay off. 
 I am in favor of several steps to assure we have a good supply of 
engines and parts for the future:

1. Allow the testing of the 493 regionally and then create parity 
through weight or other means.
2. Change the verbiage in the GCR regarding "as cast" condition for the 
specific purpose of allowing 494 Rave engines to be inexpensively 
converted to non-Rave. This could be accomplished by allowing the rave 
port to be "capped" after non-Rave cylinder liners are installed.

These options would permit the large supply of 494 Rave-valve engines to 
be cheaply converted, and a new 493 engine (with parity adjustments) for 
those who wanted a brand new engine and are willing to spend more.

I don't see any down side to these options. Those of us with "approved" 
494 engines can continue to use them. Those who need a fresh engine 
could "de-Rave" a 494 Rave engine at a very reasonable cost.  Those who 
want the newest can buy the 493, after appropriate '"restrictions" are 
decided upon.

I believe we need to quickly get the SCCA to approve the simple 
conversion (change cylinder liners and cap the rave port) of the 494 
Rave engine. It seems like that's the best short/medium term solution.

Just my .02
-Jeff Blumenthal


Richard W Schmidt wrote:

> What Eric is saying is exactly why we should not have a new engine at 
> this time. When the 494 was introduced, the thought was that with only 
> one exhaust pipe and 50 lbs weight on the Rotax, the Kawasaki would 
> remain competitive. Well we all know that didn't work, (not in road 
> racing anyway), but did SCCA go back and change the weight to make the 
> Kawasaki competitive, NO!. Just too bad! Want to race up front, then 
> buy a motor from Tony. Now Tony doesn't have anything to sell, so just 
> drag out the next engine, sweet talk SCCA, and start selling engines 
> again. This is not about Tony, he has done a great job keeping the 494 
> available all these years. But now it's over, no new 494's, and no new 
> shinny engine to put in your new shinny car, to bad.
>  
> Replacement parts are available from Rotax and probably will be for 
> many years. Buy some parts, scrounge the junk yards. Maybe Tony can 
> start up a locator service for those people looking for Rotax's, you 
> know, kinda like a match service. (lonely in NJ seeks true soulmate 
> for his F500).
>  
> As for the SCCA, secretly bringing in a new engine without asking for 
> membership input is just wrong. When were they planning on telling the 
> club members? (oh, by-the-way, you can now use the 493).
>  
> We all know what will happen here. If the 493 has an performance 
> advantage, more than likely SCCA will not change the weight rules, and 
> then everybody will have to buy a new engine. Is this the way to keep 
> the cost of racing in our class low? You guys, and you know who you 
> are, who want to go faster, jump to FS, FF, FC, FM, or what ever, but 
> let our F500 class alone.
>  
> Richard Schmidt
> LOL F500 #6
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric D. Christensen" <edc at proadmin.com <mailto:edc at proadmin.com>>
> To: <f500 at www.f500.org <mailto:f500 at www.f500.org>>
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:52 AM
> Subject: RE: [F500] Engines and all sorts of controversy
>
> > The "regional only" approval for a new engine is the standard path it
> > seems, at least for F500. That's exactly the same thing they did for
> > the AMW and Rotax 494 when they were introduced. It allows those of us
> > who are adventurous to run the new engine and get some experience with
> > it. At the same time it allows SCCA to evaluate the performance of the
> > new engine in competition and determine if any adjustments are needed
> > to maintain parity with the existing engines.
> >
> > All the HP numbers, torque numbers, etc. don't really tell how this
> > engine will perform relative to the exiting engines. I've heard claims
> > ranging from "it's not at all competitive with the 494" to "It's going
> > to blow the 494 out of the water". There's really no way to evaluate
> > an engine's relative performance without bolting it into a chassis and
> > running it side by side with the existing engines for several events.
> > This year of regional only competition will do just that. It'll be
> > interesting.
> >
> > > This whole thing went through without member comment, which
> >
> > I don't think that this was done without any member input. I certainly
> > have provided input in writing to the comp board on this issue, and I
> > know many other folks who have as well. Feedback has been both
> > positive and negative. What was clear is that an alternative for the
> > 494 needed to be identified so we didn't get into the situation
> > (again) where we're stuck with unsupported, obsolete engines and
> > scrounging for parts.
> >
> > Tony Murphy offered the 493 as an alternative engine, and it seems to
> > fit the bill rather nicely. I personally applaud the Comp Board for
> > taking action in such a timely manner. I was a little concerned that
> > this wouldn't get done this year and we'd be stuck waiting for another
> > year to start the evaluation process on a new engine.
> >
> > Those of you who have been in this class for 10 or 15 years know that
> > the comp board has not always been so efficient at getting engines
> > approved, which has caused a lot of problems in the past.
> >
> > -----
> > Eric D. Christensen    edc at proadmin.com <mailto:edc at proadmin.com>
> > SCCA Formula 500       http://www.f500.org
> >
> > 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://f500.org/pipermail/f500/attachments/20021216/a7047e56/attachment.html