[F500] 493 availability

[McAbee, Chuck]

Curtis -

Please don't take this a flame of your post.  In a perfect world everything
you propose would be done, and could be done because money would be no
issue.  The reality is that the 'Manufacturers' of F500 cars are a cottage
industry.  For the most part they are guys, just like the rest of us who
have daytime (or in my case nighttime) jobs that pay the bills for everyday
life like food, housing, wife, kids, street cars etc.  The difference is
that they possess the abilities to design, fabricate and assemble our cars
and the desire to do it.  They do make money on their efforts, they are at
least entitled to that, however, if any of them tried to make a living off
the proceeds of their F500 cars and parts, they would soon be dealing with
the bankruptcy court.

Evolution of engines is a fact of life in our class, like it or not.  Our
foray in dealing with a specialty engine manufacturer to 'stabilize engine
availability', AMW was an unmitigated disaster and nearly killed the class.
How the Chaparral came to be the first legalized engine for the class I have
no idea.  The Kawasaki was legalized, primarily, because class competitor
Ray Little got some kind of 'sweetheart deal' on a large number of the
engines.  The AMW succeeded the Kawasaki when their supply dried up and the
Rotax 494 came to the rescue of the AMW.  We need to keep the class engined
with a current production engine, that comes as close as possible in
performance to the already legalized engines.  It would appear the Rotax 493
fits the bill, especially if it is legalized with the 38mm Mikuni
Roundslides and a single exhaust pipe.  

I suspect Rotax will continue to make parts for the 494 for a number of
years and the aftermarket suppliers will be able to supply most parts for
even more years than Rotax, peruse the Dennis Kirk or Hi-Performance
Engineering catalogs.  The idea of scouring junk yards for a supply of
engines to keep the class alive is beyond dumb; those that want to go the
junk yard routine are certainly welcome to do it, but we cannot base the
class future on junk yards.  While junk yards may work in Formula V, the
1200cc VW was manufactured in the MILLIONS in a number of countries,
Germany, Brazil and Mexico to name three, over a period of 20+ years.  Sleds
with the 494 were manufactured in the thousands over a production life of
maybe 5 years.  Our engine situation is not like FV and should not be
compared to it. 

While there may be some performance difference between the 493 and the 494,
those differences will be nowhere near as pronounced as the progression from
the Kawasaki (436cc) to the AMW (499cc).  When the AMW was being discussed
during the 1992 and 1993 seasons as a replacement for the Kawasaki, SCCA
never mentioned to the competitors that the engine would be 500cc and in
fact the class designation wasn't changed to F500 until the Rotax 494 was
legalized for Nationals for the 1997 season.  As point of information, times
turned by the likes of Wesley Wilfong, David & Paul Elliott in Kawasaki
powered cars are still difficult times for most of us to turn today in Rotax
powered cars.  Let face the facts....FAST guy are FAST no matter what they
drive.  Those of use who aren't FAST will never be fast, if we knew what the
difference between fast and not fast is, we could bottle it an sell it and
make millions. (Curtis - I'm not saying you are not fast, I'm just saying
the best drivers set times with the Kawasaki that make the Rotax work hard
to better)

Bombardier/Rotax in their 'technical specifications' of their sled on their
respective web sites do not publish figures for horsepower or torque for
their engines.  I have to believe Tony Murphy when he states the engines are
comparable.  The AMW is also a 500cc reed valve engine and with the 38mm
Mikuni BN carbs and single pipe and, as last developed by the late Howell
Jones, was also comparable to the Rotax 494 with the 'hot' pipe.  We are
making much too big a deal over the differences between the 494 and the 493.
Lets get the 493 legalized and get on with racing.


Chuck McAbee
SEDIV #16



-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis [mailto:cteague at chartertn.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 15:01
To: f500 at f500.org
Subject: Re: [F500] 493 availability


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! ***