Printable View
We have been having discussions on our forum re the introduction of 600CC M/C engines to the F500 class. Given the amount of interest in this we wish to conduct a poll.
We would like responses from current F500 owners.
Do we want/need 600cc M/C engines in F500?
If 600cc M/C engines are allowed would you switch to it from your present 2-stroke?
I currently have a 494 powered KBS Mark 7 and will be shipping my car off to Jay Novak to do a GSX-R conversion. Although I don't think there will ever be perfect parity between the engines, I think the addition of the motorcycle engine will attract a lot of new blood into the group as well as help those of us who are not as adept at clutch and two cycle tuning.
Well, the poll won't let you pick two choices, so here are my votes: yes to 600s in F500 class and yes to converting to 600. I started my conversion 6 months ago and will begin testing on Monday.
i had no interest in f500 before the f600 project came along.i have just bought a 93 red devel and am converting it to f600 spec with a new chassis.its much more interesting with a bike motor and gears.
I'm no longer an owner of a F500, however during the entire 10 years I campaigned my Red Devil I wished it had a motorcycle engine/tranny! Now that I have the Suzuki Hayabusa engine in my Ralt RT5 I know my thinking was correct during that 10 yrs. ;):D
I also vote NO to allowing 600cc motorcycle engines as an alternative engine in F500.
No to both.
There is no shortage of Rotax motors.
Threre is no shortage of Rotax parts.
In fact, if someone were to put together a group buy for 10 motors, Rotax will build them. Brand-shiney-new.
And, as someone who spent time racing in another series that uses "stock" 600cc MC engines, trust me when I tell you that once it is determined which engine is "the" engine to have, it will be expensive (if you want to be competitive). And "the" engine to have will change every few years.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
I think this poll is probably a pretty accurate pulse on the racing communities feeling towards the MC option.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by kmt63
FWIW, I've driven Rotax karts, CF/FF, Spec Miata, F500, and FE. That covers clutch, CVT, synchro box, dogring "H" pattern, and dog ring sequential. I haven't found shifting to make things any more enjoyable. Truth be told, two of my most personally memorable races were run without shifting. I have found that the crucial element in a fun race is parity between cars. If/when you run side by side with another driver and you know that your cars have roughly equal capabilities, it's a HECK of a lot more fun than simply buying all the right parts and out-spending the competition. Shifting doesn't impact this in any way, nor does the difference between 2- and 4-stroke engines.
In fact, changing out a gear stack in a Hewland between sessions is a much larger pain in the rear than changing a ramp on a F500 secondary. I certainly don't think the crew found it "interesting" last fall to split my FE in half to repair a blown clutch slave cylinder seal - with 45 minutes to grid.
I will also question why people think 2-strokes are difficult to tune. Jetting is not that hard to figure out with proper instrumentation and an air density gauge - and you don't have to worry about valves or cams!
I'm not going to vote in the poll since I no longer own a F500. However, I will give this opinion. F500 as a basic design platform has some issues, but they aren't due to the CVT.
1) IMHO, vibration is the biggest problem F500 faces, and I believe it is the primary reason for the relatively low reliability of the cars. As an example, I went through 3 brand new starter solenoids in two race weekends; the eventual solution was to rubber-isolate the solenoid to reduce the vibration (Ed C - if you ever remove the solenoid, PUT THOSE RUBBER WASHERS BACK!;)). I surmise that this is due to use of an inline two-cylinder engine bolted down hard to the chassis.
2) The weight limit is too low, resulting in design compromises that end up with weaker systems than we really should have. I believe I can honestly say that I never came back from a F500 race weekend without a cracked weld somewhere, and I went through a TON of 3/8" rod ends. The FFs, which run about the same speed, tend to use larger [more expensive, heaver] components all the way around. Thus, they last longer and are less likely to fail. If there were another 50 lbs or so available, I'd bet the designers would use it to increase the size of the stressed components. Some people have tried to point at the puck suspension as the issue, but other open-wheel cars are very stiffly set up and don't seem to have the same level of issues.
FWIW, I will say that F500 as it is today (CVT, Rotax) gave me without a doubt the most fun for the money I've had in SCCA. I also spent a lot of time working on the car. YMMV.
That is what separates those of us who buy the car for the race from those who buy the car for the ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney
i just have never liked clutch cars.i raced 80cc shifter karts and they where 2 stroke.the tuning of the motor never scared me.the racing was very close.there was like 25 to 30 karts in the class.road racing shifters was some of my best racing so far.so what i never liked about f500 was the snow mobile clutches all there motors winding up and down around the corners.so for the bike motor to come along its a perfect fit for me.being affordable and a shifter motor.that said they are also projected to be much slower that a top notch f500 so what does it really matter anyway.less horsepower and more weight for f600.
kevin
Actually, this is what drove me away from the 2-stroke. Here is Lousyana the day starts at 60 degrees/70% humidity, and ends with 95 degrees/100% humidity. I was rejetting three times an event. Never again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney
Marshall,
the rod ends going bad is the poor quality of them not the size of the car.west and stohr use 3/8 rod ends at all in board a arm pick ups.the car is heavier and pull far more gs and they last.they also use a high quality rod ends.as for the welds.well i have to say that my red devil chassis is one of the worst racing chassis i have seen.it would not shock me to see broken welds on this thing.remember this is a low cost class.to build a cheap car corners are cut.not a bad thing just cant expect high quality and cheap.
Marshall,
You ask the reason why as if you have not been reading both F5 forums for awhile - there is a tremendous number of reasons given on www.eformulacarnews.com F500 forum as well as some on this forum. Once you have read all of these threads THEN come back and make comments. I think that you will see very strong arguments in favor of MC drivetrains as an alternative in F500.
Respectfully,
Jim
Been messing with these cars since 1982
I note that there are 7 responders to the poll who would not switch to a 4 stroke. This is the only part of the poll that is ambiguous.
It can mean a couple of things:
1. I do not want the MC engines & will not switch.
2. I am OK with the MC engines but will keep my 2 stroke.
Could those of you who posted reply as to you position?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Quote:
Originally Posted by speednby
There is a shortage of used motors which is why the 494RAVE is being looked at to help with increasing supply.
Parts are available but expensive. I have watched the parts pricing go way up since 1982.
They sure will - for $3K for the motor ONLY - no carbs, MPEM, starter, or CVT; while a 600cc MC WITH transmission, starter, EFI & Computer can be had NEW for $1,600. This is a BUDGET class and this flip-flop of costs forces us to look at MC drivetrains.
Please go back and read the proposal - Individual Inlet Restrictors (these don't screw up the computer like a SIR does) will CONTROL the HP war no matter what you do to the "stock" motor. We were aware of the HP war a long time ago so please catch up to where we are today by reading our proposal. I think that you will be pleased with our controls on the MC drivetrain.
We are looking forward to F500 gaining a significant increase in participants.
Jim
And there, you will find rational opposition to all of the MC drivetrain arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim murphy
Good Luck,
Charlie
i am converting an f5 car to f6.i do understand the individual inlet restrictor rule.but i dont get why they are being used from the get go.these cars are already going to be slower.the weight limit went up from 835 to 850.how much slower do these f6 cars need to be to make everyone happy?Quote:
Originally Posted by jim murphy
Until enough F5 MC cars run on-track and turn their lap times in to the CRB over this season, we just do NOT know what they are going to do as compared to the F5's.
The IIR's are there to control the HP war and the inlet size will be set for each make/model/year of motor based on what has been found both on the dyno and the track. This is the only fair way to keep everything equivalent and true to the BUDGET spirit of this class. We have to start with IIR's because of this.
Jim
From what I understand with the IIR's I don't think they are really going to come into play with the regional rules this season. We have to get some cars on the track and start getting some data before the diameters can be set. I'm sure one of the committee members will correct me if I am wrong.
I am having Jay Novak convert my KBS Mk7 to run a '09 GSX-R. Hopefully should be done in 1.5-2 months.
so is the plan to dyno all the motors and restrict the higher horsepower motors to the one with the least horsepower?
Dyno testing and on-track performance will determine the inlet sizes that will be necessary to run equivalently with the 2 stroke/CVT cars. This will take several seasons to finalize for most of the likely motors that are run. Obviously, there will be a different inlet size for each HP motor.Quote:
Originally Posted by kmt63
Jim
When you say "finalize", I take that to mean that the intention is to have the IIR sizes required for the 2stroke vs. 2009 model year 600 4strokes equivalency figured out, for sake of discussion, by 2014. By that time there will be at least 20 additional unique models thrown into the mix, I'd hope that the newer year models will automatically get a IIR known to be too small to discourage the use of the latest and greatest and to not upset the balance. No matter how well intentioned, the Club will never be able to keep up AND achieve some type resemblance of parity with so many variables.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim murphy
The Club struggles for years to come up with some resemblance of parity with the Zetec, Iron and Aluminum head Pinto, we are talking about at least 4 new motor combinations available every single season.
In the early stages of these public forum discussions I asked Jay if his proposal meant that all 600cc 4-stroke motors would receive the same IIR size. His response was "basically YES". That isn't a yes, but it certainly isn't what you seem to be speaking about.
:confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickshoe
Jay's response was early in the process, presently the thinking is that all motors will have an IIR (Jay's response) but there will be size differences based on HP of each make/model/year so that a reasonable equivalency can be attained.
"I hope that the newer year models will automatically get a IIR known to be too small to discourage the use of the latest and greatest and to not upset the balance."
This makes perfect sense to me especially if the published HP is significantly higher than earlier models. This will give us time to dyno the motor to verify HP and then change the IIR accordingly to bring the HP down to the rest of the motors. I foresee this as an ongoing annual process before the CRB will authorize the motor in question.
Jim
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim murphy
I don't see any provision in the current rules that mandates that the CRB must authorize the motor in question. If that is the intent, than I'd suggest this verbiage needs to change:
E.15. Alternative Motorcycle Engines
A. Mass produced (Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki or Yamaha) water-cooled, 4 cylinder, 4-cycle motorcycle engines up to 600cc. The list of approved manufacturers may be modified by the CRB.
Currently, this rule is only stating that approved manufacturers may be modified. Not the model or year.
Good point - it pays to have many eyes looking over the ruleset. I am but one member of the MC committee so I cannot speak for all but I believe that the IIR requirement will control this so that every model does not have to be approved individually as long as IIR's are installed - size to be determined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickshoe
Jim
Not that I would want to throw any cold water on those impassioned enough about converting to MC power but you few who are doing this might want to read the FB section Roebling Road accounts of blown engines and an almost drastic result of one such happening. I also remember threads on building the FB where Russ McBride has lost several engines. Now maybe 600cc engines won't have the same problems that the 1000cc engines are having but if I were considering switching it might give me a pause for thought.
thats why i wanted the dry sump left on the table.not sure if fb can run a dry sump?if it was me i would have one for piece of mind.there are other causes of blown engines too.like engine braking on down shifts.over revving.i guess the acusump is legal.but it was tested on a dsr at the run offs and it didnt work.there will be some development time for the 600s to work right too.
The MC committee has been very well aware of the FB MC issues for some time now and is getting advice from the MC engine builders as well as several club racers running MC drivetrains - one such MC DSR club racer is Adam Malley of Conyers, GA. He lives conveniently nearby. He has been running a MC DSR for several years now and has had NO problem whatsoever with his MC DSR - baffled oil pan is all he has and he does not downshift to slow the car into a corner. Clint and Dan McMahan will be consulting with him closely for the foreseeable future.
Jim
I'm not sure why the dry sump system is not open to this class to use as a reliability enhancer. I don't believe it gives a performance advantage & seems like if the builder wanted to use one it should be up to them. I have one on my Ralt/Suzuki 1300 FS car & have had no associated problems in 3 years running. I do not use the engine for braking on down shifts, mainly to save the tranny. At first I made several missed shifts, (shifting down instead of up bcause of being used to shifting the previous Hewland H pattern) however it never caused any problems. This was a great improvement over my previous non-motorcycle (VW/Hewland) power train, which cost me about $5,000 every time I missed a shift. As you may be able to tell, I'm a strong believer in motorcycle powered race cars! If this new deal of using bike engines in F5 cars would have been allowed 10 years ago I definately would have built one. :thumbsup:
Scott,Quote:
Originally Posted by formulasuper
The MC committee debated back and forth on the dry sump issue and decided in favor of cost control (we ARE a budget class) to go with wet sump & modified/baffled oil pans since a large number of MC club racers run this now with no problems. They did say to go with BIG oil coolers as oil temperatures are important. IF we do run into a systemic oiling problem then we will re-consider dry sumps.
I hope that you come by and look over the McMahans' F5 MC car when they bring them out to a regional race soon - they keep making changes on them.
Jim
Each of my problems were pretty unique and shouldn't be a general indicator of motorcycle engine reliability. I'll elaborate if needed, but it would be boring. Good oiling and decent fluid temps should keep most engines humming along. Not to say that's easy to do. It can be a challenge to make sure the oil pump always has a positive feed of cooled, non-aerated oil. Along those lines, I would want the option to have a dry sump. Many wet sumped engines are out there and running well, but my brain tells me a dry sump has to offer several benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by captaineddie1975
the wet sump systems will work for the most part on a suzuki 1000.but they will not work on a kawi 06 07.there are still plenty on suzuki motors blowing up because of lack of oil pressure.the power loss with a wet sump system and high oil temps is the reason i would rather have a dry sump.say your wet sump system works at your local track.then you go to another track you have not been to.there may be a long high g left hand corner on it.then you will find out that your pan didnt work and you have a blown motor.some say that an f5 car cant pull enough gs for this to be a problem.well i guess we will find out.
There has been a misunderstanding about the use of the inndividual inlet restrictor. The IIR is a one size fits all engines deal. They work in exactly the same manner as a Single Inlet Restrictor except that as they fit AFTER the throttle body they willl not require a new ECU to make the work.
They final size of the IIR will come about as a result of the dyno testing and track testing done this year. Once the size has been set the CRB can adjust as needed for competitive parity.
My engine will be on the dyno by the end of the March & this will give us an idea of where to start.
I know that this is confusing but this is the best way to control HP growth over the years. The major bike manufacturers are doing new 600cc engines every 2 or 3 years. The IIR will keep the HP lever at a apecific level. This means that if you have an 2007 engine & had 105 hp with the IIR restrictors you would get very close to the same HP with a 2010 engine. There will not be an engine of the year race.
In my opinion this is a great solution to HP & costs of engine growth. The only problem is that it will take some time to sort through the sizes & get enough cars on the track to get solid comparitive results.
There is no doubt that the 600cc powered cars will be a bit slower from the git go. We need to do this to make the 600cc deal work for all competitors.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
The 600cc mini sprint racers use wet sumps & have great engine reliability. There are hundreds of these cars racing all over the country with wet sumps & no problems. Yes is will take a special billet or welded oil pan with baffles but it will work & the costs will be about 15% of a dry sump system.
I was at Roebling Road over the weekend & one of the F1000 cars with a DRY SUMP blew its engine. However it was was caused by an assembly problem with the motor & had nothing to do with the sump itself.
There were 4 Stohr DSR cars with WET SUMPS & none of them had ANY engine problems. The DSR cars see over 3 G's at Roebling on some ver long sweeping turns and there were no problems at all. The sump they are using is 1.5" thick & has baffles & the engines hold 4 to 5 quarts of oil.
It can be done.
Thanks ... Jay Novak.
I think the IIR is a great idea. I'd like to see it in FB. I'd like to stick with my 2005 engine for a while because the cost to upgrade and keep up with increasingly powerful engines is prohibitive. IMO, a class will be much more desirable and affordable if the goal posts aren't constantly moving. Take a look at ebay and compare the costs of engines that are current compared to those a few years older. F600 is smart to have a horsepower cap that will keep engine investments competitive for several years.
Sounds like you have the beginnings of a cost control rule proposal to be sent to the CRB.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
Go for it!!
Jim
yea the suzuki 1000 can work with wet sump.try making it work on a kawasaki.plus the high oil temp and loss of power with the motor being full of oil.been down this road before with dsr.i think i will wait and see what happens when these cars hit the track before i buy an engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak