[F500] (no subject)

[A. E. Trier]

Ok, all those in favor of the 493 had better stand up and send emails to
the CRB NOW. I sent mine in this morning. If you're as pissed off as I am
about the inconsistencies of how the Board arrived at their decision,
don't sit on you hands. Write now.

Art

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:54:43 -0500 "Ted Rudolph" <ted at tedrudolph.com>
writes:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:27:10 -0500 John Whitling
> <alliancemillsoft at worldnet.att.net> writes:
> 
> >If the people promoting this 493 will spend less time talking and
> >more time trying to evaluate it, the rest of us would feel much 
> >better about this discussion.
> 
> Several folks were. Q was prepping a second car to run in Regionals. 
> The
> Sidewinder folks were also building an engine dyno for testing. Jay 
> & Don had
> already run a comparison test. Tony sent a 493 to the SCCA so they 
> could make
> their own evaluation and that motor hasn't resurfaced. Why aren't 
> you
> screaming at the SCCA for some answers? They're sitting on a motor, 
> too (and
> Tony should not be considered a charity). All of this at was done at 
> the
> Suppliers own expense  what else would you like to see done? And 
> are you
> willing to pay them to do more? Are you ready to rent Qs car for 
> the season?
> 
> The biggest gripe that many of the 493 folks have is that we are 
> told there
> hasn't been enough evaluation of the 493, yet the 494 RAVE parts are 
> instantly
> ok for National Competition? And now the "under-evaluated 493" is 
> banned
> entirely and the un-evaluated 494 RAVE pieces are legal? This is 
> fair &
> rational thinking? Art & Tony established that various 494 RAVE 
> parts can be
> interchanged to increase combustion chamber size and change valve 
> timing,
> theres still debate over the proper method to block the RAVE port 
> and the
> effect it has on performance. No-one pushing the 494 RAVE has 
> mentioned dyno
> testing of their parts. Why isnt the 494 RAVE being held to the 
> same
> standards as the 493?
> 
> I was also preparing to run a 493 engine this year to help the 
> evaluation. As
> of last night I told my chassis builder to stop his modifications 
> based on my
> 493 and determine what is required to fit the (slightly larger?) 
> 494. Not that
> I plan on buying a 494 - I can't afford it. And I can't afford to 
> buy one next
> spring, either. As it stands right now, the car will be set up for a 
> 494 and
> then go up for sale (I'll also have a unused 493 for sale). Unless 
> the Comp
> Board manages some type of recto-cranial separation quickly, I'll be 
> out of
> F500 and the SCCA before I ever got in (can I get my 8 years of 
> membership
> fees back?). It's not worth running one season to have my car 
> banned. I'd
> rather save the money for a shifter kart purchase.
> 
> My third e-mail to the Comp Board will be sent shortly. I will ask 
> them to
> back their "consensus of the community" statement with some 
> statistics.
> 
> -Ted
> 
> P.S. Thanks to the folks who answered my questions about tire 
> compounds. The
> only bright light is that a busy week at work saved me the cost of 
> two sets of
> tires.
> 
> 
> *********************************************
>    This message printed with 100%
>       recycled electrons.
> *********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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! 
> ***
> 
>