493 weight penalty

[Charlie Schlismann]

Opinions?

[Art Trier]

Unnecessary and hurts the future of our class
_________________
Art

[Charlie Schlismann]

The 493 is a temporary salvation for our class. I love bike engines but I am not prepared to consider the change. Tony Murphy isn't getting any orders for the 493. Sure there are other sources, but we're goin' nowhere fast. Too bad this forum is dead.
Charlie

[Art Trier]

The future is bleak because of the SCCA. They added the 50# unnecessarily and the responsibility is theirs if this highly popular class eventually fails.

Further, it would seem that the folks don't give a dam. They are not writing to the CRB complaining about their heavy handedness. If the members sit on their hands and allow the CRB to continue to tie up the growth of this class, then they can take part of the blame too.

QRE has written their letter, where are all the rest of you?
_________________
Art

[Chuck McAbee]

Results as posted at the Runoff's would make it appear the the 50 pounds added to the 493 was the appropriate 'penalty' to generate equivalence with the 494.

I am not saying that the 50 pounds is right or wrong, just stating what the times from the Runoff's indicate.

Personally I don't see the real need for the 493 penalty, the engines have the same bore & stroke, and without performing acutal measurments I expect the port areas of the engines are nearly equivalent. The dyno results that were posted on the F500 site two years ago indicate, to me, that these two designs are as nearly equal as any two dissimilar designs can be.

[Charlie Schlismann]

I'm writing tonight. A big problem, as I see it, is the stifling of new car production. Tony M. feels that the weight penalty and potential "new" engine sources is the reason nnnnnnnnot one of us has expressed any desire to him re. purchasing a new 493. The pipeline is dry; as you know the small numbers of 493's produced for us is a small drop in the bucket for Bombardier.

To be honest, when the 493 debate began, I was in the questioning/information gathering mode. I've three 494's and there was little pressure for me to jump into something new. However, in the interest of the class, I've jumped on the 493 bandwagon for all the obvious reasons and some less apparent reasons (v. easy to build an externally undetectable cheater 494).

We actually bought a new 493 and installed it at the Runoffs. Brad Hulings had the engine to develop his pipe and surprised us w/it @ M-O. Although it was a lemon (slower than a ring siezing AMW) and ultimately shot a con rod through both sides of the crankcase and blew the jug, we're putting it back in.

We'll have a season to evaluate it, but right now 50# seems too much.

Charlie

[Art Trier]

Chuck,

Do you really think the 2005 Runoff results showed that the 50# was needed? Your statements on the two engines belies that conclusion and I know you persoinally doubt the reasoning of this weight penalty.

Only one 493 was in the top 3 or 4 of the class if I remember correctly. If you took the 50# off that car and that driver, I really don't believe there would be any measured difference.

In Solo, we never added the 50# and it was evident from our Championship results that there was parity between the two Rotax engines. Just exactly your point in comparing the particulars of the engines. I believe what the Rotax engineers told us: no difference.

As long as the CRB continues to hobble the 493 with that unecessary 50#, you will not see those engines in any numbers.

The 493 is the future. If no one runs one because of the weight penalty, what does that say for the classes future?

Only letters to the CRB will change things. To remain silent helps the SCCA to eliminate F5 as we know it now. Your class, your vote.
_________________
Art

[Doug Marsh]

I have been racing two strokes since 1979 and the comment that if the bores and strokes and port area are the same the performance should be is just wrong. Their is way more to equasion than just that. Of the six cars under the tech tent, two were 493's. About the same ratio of the total number entered. We have been tuning pipes and clutches on the 494s for eight years now. The 493's are just starting to get figured out you can trust that the guys will find more power. Running against them at the Runoffs I can tell you that fifty pounds lighter and they would be dominant. I know that people don't want to hear that but I think they would do to the 494 what SCCA let the 494 do to the AMW without the fifty pounds. Talking to the engine builders they will tell you that their is AT LEAST 6-7hp advantage with the 493 already.

I also do not think that using a comparison between autocross and road racing is fair because they are two different worlds. I think you you will see the performance better when they are side by side down a 1500 foot strait after exiting a 90 mph turn.

Just my humble oppinion,
Doug Marsh
_________________
Rocketech Motorsports

[Charlie Schlismann]

I've always felt that once developed, the 493 would out perform the 494. Our personal experience w/the 493 was disasterous from the git go-SLOW and ultimate failure- hence we've no valid data.

I'm just wondering if 50# is too much, seems arbitrary. I'd like to see 25-30# w/a stipulation that the weight would be under scrutiny and subject to immediate change for two years or so. Or choke off some power somehow, again subject to review and change once the 493 gets developed. Of course, that implies that somebody or a committee follows through and that the SCCA can be bothered by the whole issue. Can't hurt to dream, eh?

FWIW, I think the AMW should be given some sort of break - weight, carbs or what ever. Not that anybody is using them anymore.
Charlie

[Chuck McAbee]

Whether I agree with the 50 pounds or not, SCCA will look at the Runoff's qualifying and race results and say that it created the parity they desired. 2006 is a new year and we will have to evaluate what happens during this coming year to figure out what is needed for 2007.

[Art Trier]

Charlie,

What you are saying about "future development" is the battlecry of people who really have not had a heart-to-heart with those who have done that development over the last two years.

There have been many folks(groups) that have already done this development you believe will happen in the future. Don Klar has done the track testing: no difference. QRE has done the clutchuing research and the actual race/practice track testing: no difference. Aaen has done the pipe research: no difference. Where do you think further development needs to be done to show the alleged superiority of the 493? . Do you really believe that these people don't know what they're doing and saying? Do I really have to remind people that don't believe in 493/494 parity of the credentials of the folks that have done this "future development" that keeps being mentioned?

Certainly, as the years go by, improvements will be made. But that is true of any engine, no matter what the design. The 494 wil get better too. Maybe even the AMW, if SCCA wakes up and allows them to use the Mikunis and there are any still around .

So IMHO, anyone saying that we should wait for further development and see what that brings, just can't see the forest for the trees . The future is unfolding every minute we digress. That future is here already!

Your class, your vote.
_________________
Art

[Chuck McAbee]

As I recollect the Aaen Pipe for the 494 was developed during the first season that the 494 was leagalized for Nationals (1997) and that pipe has become the benchmark standard for the engine, and at least from external appearance it still remains unchanged today.....and I doubt that it is unchanged because Aaen hasn't tried everything he can think of to improve upon the design.

As Art Trier states, some of the best in the class have had a hand in developing the 493 to be what it is today and it is my humble belief that the 493 and 494 are as near equal as any two dissimilar engine designs can be.