[F500] Attn BOD: F500 Engine Proposal in March Fastrack

[Eric D. Christensen]

The following item appears in the March Fastrack which causes me
considerable concern:

        The following items have been previously
        addressed, are submitted for
        information only, or require no further
        action by the Competition Board.
        
        F500
        1. Allow use of the 493 engines and/or
        the RAVE 494. (Breschini, McLeod) The
        consensus of the F500 community is to
        allow the use of the RAVE 494 with
        blocked off RAVE ports and not to allow the
        493 engine.
        
I urge you to reconsider acting up this recommendation at this time. The
information presented is not accurate, and the data upon which these
conclusions were drawn is flawed. This should be, at the very least,
referred back to the comp board for further investigation. 

First off... Based on extensive communication with many, many people in
the F500 community, I do not belive that "The consensus of the F500
community is to allow the use of the RAVE 494 with blocked off RAVE
ports and not to allow the 493 engine" as stated in fastrack.

While in informal "show of hands" during comp board meeting at the
Runoffs did indicate at that time that the majority of competitors
present were in favor of the 494 Rave, considerable information has
surfaced since the Runoffs which has caused many to change their views.

Also at that same meeting, another informal "show of hands" indicated
that approximately half of the competitors were also in favor of the 493
engine being approved for National competition (it became legal for
regional in 2003). Again, with the new information about the 494 Rave,
many more competitors are now supporting the 493 engine. 

The new information involving the 494 Rave is that the 494 Rave has been
built in several different configurations, with many different component
parts which are not externally identifiable. These different engine
versions vary in HP by nearly 10%. Further, by mixing and matching
components from several 494 Rave versions a motor can be built which
exceeds the performance characteristics of the most powerful "factor"
configurations, but cannot be identified without disassembly. This
creates a compliance nightmare for both competitors and scrutineers.

I run the F500 web site ( http://www.f500.org ) and mailing list and
have been a F500 competitor for over 10 years. The F500 mailing list is
an interactive forum where most F500 competitors, constructors and
tuners discuss current issues. 

There has been considerable discussion over the past 6 months concerning
both the 494 Rave and the 493. A complete archive of every message
posted to the F500 mailing list is available at
http://www.f500.org/pipermail/f500/ which you may review. 

It appears clear from the discussion that the consensus is exactly
opposite of what is presented.

The consensus of the F500 community is to approve the 493 for national
competition and review the 494 Rave more closely before approving it in
light of the possible compliance issues. 

I am also very concerned about the inconsistency between the approval
process for the 494 Rave and 494 engines. The 494 engine was approved
for regional competition in 2002 for the 2003 season, to evaluate it
against the current 494 Non-Rave engine. The 493 was not run in
competition during 2003, so the regional only approval was extended
through the 2004 season. It has been tested in controlled tests by
competitors, at least one of which was attended and monitored by SCCA
officials .

The 494 Rave engine, on the other hand, has not been legal even for
regional use, and has not been tested in any sort of controlled manner.
Yet it has been recommended for national approval already (in spite of
the compliance issues).

At the very least, this should be referred back to the Comp Board for
further investigation before any national approval. 

I personally support both engines equally... but the 494 Rave engine
requires very specific wording of the rules which details which engine
configuration and components are legal. This will require further
research as it is obvious that the SCCA does not currently have
sufficient data. I would also like to see testing and scrutiny
comparable with what the 493 engine has, and is going through. 

The 493 engine is only built in one configuration, so the compliance
issues are not a factor. It has been track tested, and dyno data
comparing the 494 to the existing 494 Non-Rave is available and has been
published ( see http://www.f500.org/rotax/ ). A 493 engine was in the
hands of SCCA in Topeka for several moneht last year. It is clear to me
that that engine has already been sufficiently evaluated and is as
comparable to the existing legal engine as can be expected. It has the
support of large number of competitors. As such it should be approved
for National competition as soon as possible. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

-- 
Eric D. Christensen <edc at proadmin.com>
Proadmin, Inc.