[F500] 493 availability

[O.S. Brannon]

Couldn't agree more.

Thank you Chuck.
>-- Original Message --
>From: "Jay Novak" <jnovak6 at wideopenwest.com>
>To: <f500 at f500.org>
>Subject: RE: [F500] 493 availability
>Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:26:56 -0500
>Reply-To: f500 at f500.org
>
>
>WELL SAID Chuck.
>
>Thanks ... Jay Novak
>NovaRace Inc.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: McAbee, Chuck [mailto:Chuck_McAbee at csx.com] 
>Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 1:11 AM
>To: 'f500 at f500.org'
>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! ***

O.S. Brannon
Manager, AAA Auto Club South
Heathrow Service Center
Phone (407)444-4360
Fax (407)444-4070