[F500] 493 availability

[Michael Moench]

Not to beat a dead horse ,but, at the F500 party during the Moroso event ,
(great party guys!) I spoke at length to Kevin, about the 493/494 issue. At
the time I didn't know he sits on the comp. board, good thing I didn't say
anything bad about them! My point to him as a quote "supplier" was , either
we want or don't want a new, current production engine. Assuming we do want
one, then which is the current "best" choice? Sidewinder  thinks that the
best match (not perfect) is the 493 rave. Changing the whole class to a
motorcycle base or to shocks is not a real  option, as it would make every
car obsolete. That would be a DSR, and we already have a Sidewinder and a
Novakar running in that class. Ed Dickinson has just finished adding both
shocks and a motorcycle engine to his Novakar. I know that my brother Mike
posted that we will be dyno testing, and we will as soon as we can. I think
its time we get behind this engine and get on with development of the class.
Our current Sidewinder design allows fitment of almost any engine out there,
but I think that the 493 will come closest to the current engines. If it
proves to have an advantage we could add weight. I think the only other
option is to do nothing at all and just keep refreshing what we have. My
opinion only, Jeff @ Sidewinder
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Curtis" <cteague at chartertn.net>
To: <f500 at f500.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:53 PM
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! ***