[F500] 493 availability

[John Whitling]

Curtis,

Thanks for the post. I like it all except that it would, presumably, be 
easier to just use a dyno, and much less subjective to car setup, et 
all. It would take a long time just to figure out how you want to clutch 
a 493 for max speed since it seems to pull a lot more revs than the 494.

In addition it would be equivilant to the fox guarding the henhouse. We 
need independant results.

John Whitling

Curtis wrote:

>Thanks Art for the continual updates on the engines.  I have been reading
>the postings with great interest.
>
>I believe addition of the 493 "might" be in the best interest of the class,
>but primarily from the standpoint of the car builders.  I fully understand
>their desire to have a new engine available for sale in a new car.  Makes
>sense.  I, for one, do not believe there is an immediate need for any type
>of replacement for those of us desiring to continue running the 494
>non-rave.  Maybe I am being naively optimistic, but I have not had problems
>getting parts.  Let me qualify that by saying that I am only considering the
>two engines I have and a once a year "freshening."   I realize the time will
>come when the parts will be harder/impossible to obtain, but I wonder if
>that will happen before the issue of replacing the 493 with another engine
>rolls around again (ie. people are still running Kaw engines after we have
>been through the change twice with AMW and Rotax).  Granted, if the 493 is
>truly equal (or not significantly different) to the 494 non-rave, then
>adding it to the approved list poses no problem.  So, I would pose the
>following.
>
>I believe the class deserves some hard data to show the comparability of the
>493 with the 494 non-rave (never mind the rave and the mixing issues which
>I'll address below).  It is my belief that the only fair way to do this is
>to run cars equipped with both engines at the same track, at the same time,
>with the same driver (I notice Jeremy has already volunteered Jonathan!!),
>setup equivalently.  Cheap?  Probably not.  Therefore, I would suggest that
>the car builders interested in having a new engine available get together
>and split the cost, oversee the testing, and publish the results.  Tony
>should be all too willing to provide a stock 493 for use, and possibly a 494
>non-rave if the stock configuration is questionable.  I like Tony and agree
>he has been a great benefit to the class.  He is also running a business and
>making money on the sale of engines (assumably, or he wouldn't stay in
>business!), so it would be an investment for his business future.  This data
>would be factual, and would not be under the control of Rotax (Bombardier)
>so it could be published.  Maybe that is asking too much of the car
>builders.  I realize they are not making a living building these cars, but
>with a half dozen or more sharing costs I would not expect that they could
>not recover the investment with future sales, etc.  It seems to be in their
>best interests.
>
>Assuming we could accomplish this in 2004, it would go a long way toward
>getting a consensus on the use Nationally for 2005.  However, the major
>issue still exists of mixing of parts to make a "hot" engine.  Listing the
>"approved" parts is a great start, but it will depend on the level of tech
>inspection as to whether the mixed parts issue is policed.  Unfortunately,
>short of formal protest, we cannot control this.  I for one do not want to
>see a situation where someone is protested at every event because they are
>faster.  If the above testing could be arranged, maybe a "hot" configuration
>494 non-rave and a 494 rave could be included for comparison.  At the end of
>the day however, I think it is going to be impossible to eliminate
>infringement of the rules.  Look at NASCAR for example!  Maybe the real
>answer would be to specify the max displacement and open it up to any
>production parts arrangement.  I know, I know, expensive......but some are
>already spending the money it would appear from the posts.  For what it's
>worth, a few more HP, although always welcome, would not have helped me
>significantly toward the end of this season, as I was struggling with
>setup/suspension woes and likely could not have taken advantage of it.
>Which brings me to my final point, fast lap times are always about more than
>just HP!!  I think the 493 definitely has a place in F500 future, but lets
>get some hard data.
>
>Let's finish the engine debates and start talking about adding shocks
>again!!!  : )  Talk about improving lap times (and ruffling feathers).  I,
>for one, would welcome the challenge of tuning these cars with a spec
>shock!!
>
>Curtis Teague
>_______________________________________________
>F500 mailing list - F500 at f500.org
>To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
>http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
>*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
>
>  
>