MC engine proposal recommended for approval by the CRB

[Jnovak]

The CRB has recommended that the MC engine proposal for F500 be approved by the BOD. For those who have not see it yet here is a link to the recommendation in the August FasTrack http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-aug-club.pdf

OK guys, now we are down to the nitty gritty. We have spent the last year providing the CRB with every bit of information that they have requested. The CRB is now confident that the MC engines will fit within the competitive framework of F500 and that the MC engines will in NO WAY be some sort of overdog within the F500 racing community.

Please note this quote from the proposal that the CRB has recommended for approval:

B. The existing F500 Rotax 493, 593 and 494 two stroke engines shall be the competitive benchmarks for F500. To that
end, the power of all motorcycle engines allowed in F500 shall be controlled by the placement of 30.0 mm flat plate
intake restrictors placed between each cylinder throttle body and its corresponding inlet port. All air entering the intake
ports of the engine must pass through the required intake restrictors. The CRB may require adjustments to the restrictors at
any time by publication in FasTrack

What this plainly means is that the CRB will not let the MC engines kick everyones butt. The 30mm restrictors will limit the MC HP to such an extent that they will be a couple of seconds slower that front running Rotax powered F500 cars.

I am a 2 stroke fan & a big one at that. I personally got the 494 non-rave engine approved, I also managed the approval of the 494 rave engine. I do not want to see the 2 strokes go away. What I do want is to grow the class with a much younger group of entrants into F500. I am certain that the MC engine with the attendant shifting and true F1 race engine sounds will do just that.

Are the MC engines for everyone? ABSOLUTELY NOT!. I am certain that there is room within F500 for both types of engine. I can guarantee you that the 1st 2 cars we build will be a Rotax and a Suzuki powered car.

Think of this; last year there were 68 different drivers who ran National races in the F500 class for a total of 265 National entries or 3.9 entries/driver. Let's round it up to 4/driver for easy calculations.

Right now we have 8 MC powered cars already racing and another 18 being built by many people around the country. This is a total (today) of 26 cars that will race next year. I think that this is pretty amazing considering that there is not even a National class that we can race in. People are putting their money on the line for this idea & that is a big deal IMHO.

OK Let's assume that 20 of these 26 cars race Nationals at the rate of 4 entries/driver totaling 80 additional entries for F500. Add the 80 to the 265 and you get 345 entries. That's a 30% increase in National participation. Also know that 365 National entries would have put F500 a VERY SOLID 6th in National participation for the 2010 season.

I am certain that if the MC engines are approved for the 2012 National season that many more cars will be built and raced next season.

I want to see F500 grow, not stagnate and slowly fade away and the approval of the MC engine proposal will make F500 grow.

I ask each of you to send your letters of support for the MC engine proposal. Let's make F500 an even better class.

Send your letters to the CRB at this link: http://www.crbscca.com/

Also send your letters to the BOD at bod@scca.com this will go to all Members of the Board.

_________________
Thanks ... Jay Novak
F500 since 1984

[Marshall Mauney]

Jay -

The whole proposal is a lot to digest at a quick reading. Are there any changes from the last proposal that was submitted - aside from the restrictor sizing?

Thanks,
Marshall

[Jnovak]

Marshall, there are a couple of very minor wording changes that the CRB made. Other than that the big issues are the definition of the restrictor and the weight.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[lancer360]

Just sent in my letters.

[RobLav]

I still think a 600cc in a Formula Ford chassis would have been better! We know that would never fly though.

[tedsimmons2]

One of the differences is the allowance of a dry-sump oiling system.

[Jnovak]

One of the differences is the allowance of a dry-sump oiling system.

You are correct Ted. We had not requested approval for dry sumps but the CRB wanted to put it in for reliability reasons.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[jim murphy]

I still think a 600cc in a Formula Ford chassis would have been better! We know that would never fly though.

I like the idea of a 750cc MC in a FF chassis with IIR's - eliminates the expensive transaxle and gives you a cheaper drivetrain (thousands available on EBay), thus reducing the cost of FF, probably for the first time in its class history.
And you get a dual wheel rear chain drive versus the one wheel drive currently (open diff). AND, And - you get a single big rear brake in the center working on both wheels - lower unsprung weight.
Maybe, even add full sidepods so that everything can be packaged in a sane manner which would allow a big radiator and oil cooler, too.

Do you want to champion this?

Jim

[RobLav]

Jim - briefly, "no". I did this already with F1000 on the rules committee. Besides, I disagree with the 750cc route since not all manufacturers build them, and the FF community would never embrace it. Although some issues with implementation, the Honda has pretty much solved their engine issue.

[Jnovak]

Those of you who are in support of the motorcyle engines for use as alternative engines in F500, please send new letters to the CRB & the BOD. The CRB actually considers this a new proposal as there were some wording changes so new letters are required.

Please send your new letters asap.

The proposal is here:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-aug-club.pdf

Your letters can be sent to:
bod@scca.com

or use the CRB link at:
http://www.crbscca.com/

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[B17overhead]

I still think a 600cc in a Formula Ford chassis would have been better! We know that would never fly though.

That would be the very best way for F600 to grow properly.

[jim murphy]

That would be the very best way for F600 to grow properly.

A lot has happened in the interim - F600 is now a separate regional (for now) class and the board has asked the F600 committee to come up with a whole new ruleset that will incorporate a larger chassis (for the bigger drivers) and several optional conventional components. Watch for the announcements in Fastrack, you will like what you see.

Jim
F600 Committee

[Bill Bonow]

Jim,

Maybe you should expand on this a little. When you say Regional class, by who's recognition? I don't think this is a nation wide class (or is it?), just a set of rules that can be adapted by a region or division, correct?

It also sounds like a whole new class vs an alternative engine to F500.

Could be way off base, but I'm not sure that another new class is going to be very well accepted.

Spill the beans Jim, can't let the cat partially out of the bag and expect to keep everyone in limbo.

[tedsimmons2]

Quoted from the formula500.org forum September 27 by Jay Novak -
"The rules will be exactly the same as the F500 chassis and body rules. The only differences between F500 and F600 will be in the definition of the engine/drive-train specs.

All we need to do is to put the entire rules set in one section for F600. This will only require some editing."

I believe Jay is on the F600 board so which is it going to be - a big change or no change from what was previously submitted. If you keep changing the rule set it will discourage participation not encourage it. Ted S.

[jim murphy]

Jim,

Maybe you should expand on this a little. When you say Regional class, by who's recognition? I don't think this is a nation wide class (or is it?), just a set of rules that can be adapted by a region or division, correct?

It also sounds like a whole new class vs an alternative engine to F500.

Could be way off base, but I'm not sure that another new class is going to be very well accepted.

Spill the beans Jim, can't let the cat partially out of the bag and expect to keep everyone in limbo.

The Board stated that they will make an exception to their policy of "no new classes" and established F600 as a new class which will start as a regional class nationwide.
Yes, it is definitely a new set of rules just for F600 as the board is strongly in favor of an entry level, budget, motorcycle formula car class per their latest statement in Fastrack. They told us (the F600 committee) that they want a bigger chassis for bigger drivers (like a sports car nose for wider footbox) and three (?) optional conventional components. Since the ruleset has not been finalized for publication in Fastrack I cannot say anything more specific that we, the committee, have been debating the details about. Once it is in Fastrack we can input all we want.

Jim

[Bill Bonow]

In the latest (November) Fastrack, there is only the mention of "multiple letters received" in regards to alternative engines. However, in the October Fastrack, it reads this:

"The CRB will recommend adoption of an F600 class based on F500 chassis construction rules using 600cc motorcycle engines."

That sounds quite a bit different from your description. So one must guess that a new set of F600 rules will be coming out in a future Fastract, looking for member input?

[jim murphy]

In the latest (November) Fastrack, there is only the mention of "multiple letters received" in regards to alternative engines. However, in the October Fastrack, it reads this:

"The CRB will recommend adoption of an F600 class based on F500 chassis construction rules using 600cc motorcycle engines."

That sounds quite a bit different from your description. So one must guess that a new set of F600 rules will be coming out in a future Fastract, looking for member input?

The October announcement was merely an introduction statement (like a movie trailer?) with the rest of the story to come out in Fastrack soon. We, the F600 Committee, have submitted our proposed ruleset to the Board and we have not heard any requests recently for further changes (like we have for the past several months) so we are of the belief that the proposed ruleset is now set and will appear in the next Fastrack, unless the Board asks otherwise.

Jim

[ready4more]

Please list all of the members of the F600 Committee.

[jim murphy]

Please list all of the members of the F600 Committee.

IIRC:

Chris Huskamp - Chair
Jay Novak
Jim Murphy
Clint McMahan
Dan McMahan
Jack Walbran
Leon Mitchell

I hope that I got everybody.

Jim

[Hardingfv32]

So does the posted F600 rules set well with the constructers?

They sound like great cars, but can F500s be converted without too much trauma?

Brian

[jim murphy]

So does the posted F600 rules set well with the constructers?

They sound like great cars, but can F500s be converted without too much trauma?

Brian

The ruleset, still waiting on it to be published in Fastrack, will be based on the F500 chassis with optional allowances so that the F500 chassis can still be converted just like before and be competitive. Over the next several years, the optional allowances will be incorporated into the cars as the class evolves. You will like what you see - that is our goal.

Jim

[Hardingfv32]

I am referring to the rule set just proposed in a pre-Fastrack posting today.

Sound like a hole different ball game from what you guys have been posting. Or have I missed something?

Brian

[jim murphy]

I am referring to the rule set just proposed in a pre-Fastrack posting today.

Sound like a hole different ball game from what you guys have been posting. Or have I missed something?

Brian

Brian,
Tell me where I can read this.

Jim

[nulrich]

You can read the preliminary minutes here.

Nathan

[RussMcB]

The way I read it, you can have a choice of building or converting a traditional F500 chassis, or you can build a slightly larger chassis with shocks. It looks like the rules makers will try to equalize those two options with weight.

[jim murphy]

The Fastrack proposal is being discussed in the forum section of www.formula500.org under F600 General Discussion so please go there.

Jim