[F500] 493 availability

[Jay Novak]

The problem with the rave engine is that there are MANY different
configurations that could be put together.  Some of these combinations
will make a lot more hp.  It would be impossible to police the
combinations for the tech guys.

Thanks ... Jay Novak
NovaRace Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Matthis [mailto:gmatthis at bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:11 AM
To: f500 at f500.org
Subject: Re: [F500] 493 availability

So there should not be an issue of allowing 494 rave for those of us
that
aren't going the 493 route for the foreseeable future.  Legalize both of
them.

----- Original Message -----
From: "McAbee, Chuck" <Chuck_McAbee at csx.com>
To: <f500 at f500.org>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 1:10 AM
Subject: RE: [F500] 493 availability


> 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! ***
> _______________________________________________
> 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! ***