[F500] Dyno testing

[Mike Moench]

Jay
I have a water brake dyno that I have tested the AMW and 494 motors on. I
will have this dyno up and running in 2 to 3 weeks. I use the Aim Sports
data collection system with a load cell to collect the test information to
my lap top. The calibration is not exact but for comparison it is accurate
and repeatable within 1 HP.

Jim Bonsey also has a new Land and Sea dyno which is calibrated and
corrected with an integral weather station.

I will try to run both motors back to back on both dynos and forward the
results to the F500 list.

I am currently running the 493 port timing and engine specifications through
the TSR Pipe design software for comparison to the 494.

Now that the first two Nationals are complete I will have time to work on
this..........................

Congratulations to Jason Somers on his second pole and National Win at
Moroso.

Sidewinder Mike
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Novak" <jnovak6 at wideopenwest.com>
To: <f500 at f500.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: [F500] 493 availability


> No question that dyno testing would be a good idea if we could get
> someone to do it.  Ken Brown (former SCCA club racing technical
> director) started to go down this road before he was replaced.  He
> actually got some dyno data that showed that a 493 had 2 more hp (I
> think that is what he said).  The problem was that the testing was done
> on 2 different dynos by different people.  So that result is essentially
> meaningless. Plus/minus 2 hp is not much variation & is within
> repeatability ranges for many dynos.  The only way to do this is to pay
> a dyno house to really work on this & that would be just as expensive as
> car testing.  Or we get a volunteer with a dyno to spend a few of days
> to do this.  Is there anyone out there with the facility & interest to
> do this?
>
> Thanks ... Jay Novak
> NovaRace Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curtis [mailto:cteague at chartertn.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:54 PM
> To: f500 at f500.org
> Subject: Re: [F500] 493 availability
>
> Don't get me wrong, it was only a suggestion in an attempt to get
> something
> that would satisfy the concerns I saw raised on the list.  I wasn't
> suggesting that anyone was getting rich on F500 sales!  : )  Thanks for
> the
> breakdown on costs Jay, although it would appear that some of these
> costs
> have already been incurred since Don has done some testing previously.
> Anyway, maybe it was a dumb idea, I've had one or two before!   But
> maybe
> dyno testing would be better, I don't know.  It would be nice to get
> some
> type of comparison that could be shared with the community that is
> trying to
> decide the acceptance of the engine.  If we wait until it is on the
> track
> (regional or national) there will always be the question of the
> influence of
> all the other factors (chassis setup, clutching, aerodynamics, weight,
> and
> so on) on the actual performance.
>
> I know F500 sales are not some lucrative form of business and I respect
> the
> guys doing the car building.  I do see the other side of the coin
> though,
> and that is the guy paying out the cash for parts, including engines.
> If
> there is any possibility that a new engine will obsolete an existing one
> (one that for many of us does not present a current problem) or reduce
> the
> value of the existing cars/parts, then it should concern a lot of people
> enough to ask questions and seek answers.  Maybe the 493 is the best way
> to
> go for the future and maybe the data from regional races will show no
> significant difference in performance, but you can't blame the people
> with
> money already invested in the current engine not to be concerned.  And
> with
> the number of "performance" changes made to the 494 rave engine I
> believe it
> is naive to think the 493 will not go through the same cycle.
>
> Curtis Teague
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay Novak" <jnovak6 at wideopenwest.com>
> To: <f500 at f500.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 11:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [F500] 493 availability
>
>
> > Don Clar has done just that with a production NovaKar last year.  SCCA
> > attended the test.  They did not do a back to back as that would have
> > required another track day rental.  The test produced lap time that
> were
> > within .5 seconds from the 494 engine.  Check with SCCA on this, it
> > happened.
> >
> > What you propose is an interesting idea Curtis, however there are
> > several serious problems. Cost & logistics are the biggest.  When you
> > suggest that we absorb the cost so that we can make money on future
> > cars.  I have some bad news for you, no one who builds F500 cars is
> > making any money at all.  We have built & sold over 20 NovaKars  (12
> > years to do that) & I guarantee you that I have not made a nickel &
> Don
> > Clar has just about recouped his tooling costs.  Remember that total
> new
> > F500 sales are around 4-6 new cars/year for all builders (NOT EACH
> > BUILDER).
> > I am not complaining but people need to realize that this is not big
> > industry.  I will not really get into the profit issue. But the
> reality
> > is that you need to sell about 40 to 50 cars over the life of a car to
> > amortize the tooling costs & then make a profit.  The problem is that
> > entry level racers generally do not have the $$$ needed to make F500 a
> > profit making venture.  Still, it is the best class for the buck & you
> > can't go faster for less money.  I design & build because I love it.
> > (Don Clar now builds the cars now & I do the design work)
> >
> > Now to the projected costs for doing what you propose.
> >
> > 1. engines would cost Tony at least $2000 each.  Even if he loaned
> them
> > to us he still has to purchase them & then we probably really do not
> > want them now as the 493 would not be legal till 2005.  So Tony is out
> > the cost of engines for the test.
> > 2.  Engine installation:
> > design & machine engine mount.  4 to 6 man hours for design & $150
> > machine work.
> > 3. Pipe & manifold.  The one Don Clar purchased cost over $400 because
> > it was a 1 off from Aaen
> > 4.  labor to install engine, at least 20 to 25 man hours for something
> > we can't use for a year.
> > 5.  Track rental.  This is anywhere from a low of $500/day to as much
> as
> > $2500/day.  Yes you can do a track day on the Friday before a race for
> > $150 but that is down the road & then you have to switch back to go
> > National racing.
> > 6.  Travel, track fuel, food expenses, at least $200 for a one day
> test.
> > If you stay overnight then it is about $400 with 2 motel rooms for all
> > involved
> > 7.  Tires.  Who knows? I have plenty of used tires but if I use up 2
> > sets for a 2 day test I then have to replace them.  Let's estimate
> about
> > $250 worth of tires.
> > 8.  Total labor involved to do this has got to be at least 100 man
> hours
> > including work on car, travel, track time, etc. Remember that Don Clar
> > makes his living doing work on all kinds of race cars, so he can't
> stop
> > paid work for fun.
> >
> > Let's total up the costs:
> > Engine $2000 Tony Murphy
> > Mounts $150
> > Pipe etc $400 new Aaen
> > Tires $250 used tires
> > Track rental $1000 (Gingerman @ $500/day)
> > Travel, food, fuel etc. $400
> > Labor @ $50/hour $5000  real honest hard work
> >
> > Total investement $9200 including labor
> > Or $4200 if labor is free (& it is not)
> >
> > These are real numbers for someone who is trying to make a profit on
> > selling F500 cars.  When a new complete NovaKar roller chassis sells
> for
> > $12K you would have to add $1000 to price of the next 9 cars to break
> > even.
> >
> > Ask yourselves this question:  Was the approval & use of the Rotax 494
> > engine a good decision for F500?
> > I seriously doubt that anyone would say that is was bad for the class.
> > F500 is alive & well BECAUSE of Rotax engines.
> >
> > Let's just get on with it guys.  We need an engine & we need approval
> > NOW.  If you want F500 to be around in 10 years we need a PRODUCTION
> > ENGINE.  If you do not care, then so be it, F500 will be gone.
> >
> > Thanks ... Jay Novak
> > NovaRace Inc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Curtis [mailto:cteague at chartertn.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:01 PM
> > 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! ***