[F500] ATTN: Competition Board

[MMauneyJr at aol.com]

Certainly, although you can just tell them that you are writing in support of 
this request.  I would request and encourage any and all who are in favor of 
this proposed rule change to send their own supporting message to the comp 
board.  I have also sent a copy to the Formula Car Advisory Board.  From what was 
reported about the response at the lunch meeting last Wednesday, I expect 
that this will be a slam-dunk, rubber-stamp process.

....but then again, it IS the SCCA....

TIA,
MM

In a message dated 9/21/2003 2:32:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
reddogf500 at wideopenwest.com writes:
Well said!  Do you mind if I plagiarize your letter?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: f500-bounces at f500.org [mailto:f500-bounces at f500.org]On Behalf Of
> MMauneyJr at aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 2:03 PM
> To: compboard at scca.com
> Cc: f500 at f500.org
> Subject: [F500] ATTN: Competition Board
>
>
> To the SCCA Competition Board:
>
> Please accept this letter as formal request that the F500 rules
> be amended to
> allow the use of the RAVE-equipped Rotax 494 engine.  The reasons for my
> request are as follows:
>
> *  This would give the class access to a ready supply of engines that are
> functionally equivalent to the non-RAVE 494
> *  The RAVE 494 is already legal in for competition in many other
> sanctioning
> bodies, and there are cars available that are currently not legal
> to run in
> SCCA.
> *  The RAVE 494 is a newer engine, and has been in more recent production
> than the non-RAVE design.
> *  The RAVE valve has little or no impact on the performance of
> an F500.  The
> aditional components act to restrict exhaust flow at low RPMs, with the
> effect of improved low-end torque.  Once the engine has passed
> the RPM level at
> which the RAVE valve has been removed from the exhaust path, the
> engine functions
> identically to a non-RAVE 494.  F500s run a CVT with initial engagement
> points that are above the RPM range where the RAVE is intended to
> operate, so the
> presence or absence of the RAVE valve is not a determining factor
> for the car's
> total performance.
> *  Since these engines are identical to the non-RAVE 494 except for the
> cylinders, sleeve assemblies and RAVE valves, this is a much more
> natural and
> cost-effective step forward than the proposed legalization of the
> 493 Rotax.
>
> Additionally, I currently own a 2002 Red Devil that is fitted with a RAVE
> 494.  As it stands, I cannot legally enter it in an SCCA race
> without replacing
> the engine, which would entail significant expense with no other
> quantifiable
> benefits.  Since I hold a SCCA national competition license, I would much
> prefer to enter this car in local SCCA events, rather than
> seeking out and
> supporting other sanctioning bodies.
>
> Thank you for your time and attention to this issue,
>
> Marshall Mauney
> Nat'l Comp. License #255530
> Steel Cities Region
> MMauneyJr at aol.com
> ___________________________________