F500

[ApolloKnight]

Try posting on the other forum. You're more likely to get a response over there

Along with a bunch of BS.

[Jnovak]

Seems to be lots of emotion over HP disparity and a MPH here or there given all the variables. Yet, no concern over a 10 second penalty for starting a race 30+ positions ahead of where the rules dictate you start?

I get it, however Daryl. imo Clint would have won anyway. He was on a mission.

[Daryl DeArman]

Try posting on the other forum. You're more likely to get a response over there

Not looking for just a "response", but rather someone to point out the logic/rationale of the penalty. I don't visit "that other forum"; way too much bickering about parity for my taste.

[Daryl DeArman]

I'm confident that absent any bad luck getting through traffic, Clint would have been top 3 by end of lap 2. But rules are rules, why that penalty? Convenient maximum round number without changing outcome? Precedent? The right thing to do?

I get it, however Daryl. imo Clint would have won anyway. He was on a mission.

Perhaps, but should that be the litmus test? He would have had to deal with passing 37 cars while on said mission and not only the risk of him making a mistake, but being collected in someone else's mistake.

What if my ol' karting nemesis Shafer came across the scales 25# light in the P2 race? You going to shrug and say "meh-he would have won anyway"? After all Jeff was 3 seconds a lap faster than P2 and lapped the entire field. Would 25# more weight cost him the win? Not a chance. But is that the point? 25# light is light.

[Jnovak]

Perhaps, but should that be the litmus test? He would have had to deal with passing 37 cars while on said mission and not only the risk of him making a mistake, but being collected in someone else's mistake.

What if my ol' karting nemesis Shafer came across the scales 25# light in the P2 race? You going to shrug and say "meh-he would have won anyway"? After all Jeff was 3 seconds a lap faster than P2 and lapped the entire field. Would 25# more weight cost him the win? Not a chance. But is that the point? 25# light is light.

Won't argue Daryl. Tough call by the officials IMO.

[Daryl DeArman]

Won't argue Daryl. Tough call by the officials IMO.

Does that mean that they had the discretion to apply whatever penalty they wished, or is 10 seconds the standard for such thing? What if it was the guy who qualified P16, they going to DQ him or black flag him for a stop and go, or is he getting the same 10 seconds?

This isn't short track racing where you can run a bunch of pace laps until the start order is correct.

It's a tough call if you give the discretion to the officials. You do that and their decision ends up wreaking of favoritism or being over-reaching. Take away their discretion for such an infraction and no more tough call.

[Peter Olivola]

The attached, current Penalty Guidelines, are just that, guidelines. They also make no mention of what occurred in the disputed incident.

I'm more than certain that a rigid application of rules and penalties would draw equal criticism.

[clint]

Perhaps, but should that be the litmus test? He would have had to deal with passing 37 cars while on said mission and not only the risk of him making a mistake, but being collected in someone else's mistake.

What if my ol' karting nemesis Shafer came across the scales 25# light in the P2 race? You going to shrug and say "meh-he would have won anyway"? After all Jeff was 3 seconds a lap faster than P2 and lapped the entire field. Would 25# more weight cost him the win? Not a chance. But is that the point? 25# light is light.

I will say this, being 25 pounds light is a advantage. Falling from the pole to 7th isn't. Bottom line, if it hadn't of happened you and numerous others would have complained that I won while starting from the back of a 38 car field (which was very possible). If I hadn't of spun you and numerous others would've complained that a MC car led from start to finish. I guess this way you have something to complain about. Suggestion, write a letter to SCCA and tell them how you feel. I can tell you from past experience that it won't do you any good but hey, knock yourself out.

[Daryl DeArman]

The attached, current Penalty Guidelines, are just that, guidelines. They also make no mention of what occurred in the disputed incident.

I'm more than certain that a rigid application of rules and penalties would draw equal criticism.

6.5.2.C. mentioned in the guidelines covers sub 1-4, does it not? Even so, like you said they are guidelines. What the hell is the logic of stating the purpose of said guidelines is for consistency if, by their very nature, guidelines provide for inconsistency?

There's a difference between criticism and well-founded criticism. At least if the application of rules and penalties are rigid, there is no appearance of favoritism or politics.

[Daryl DeArman]

I will say this, being 25 pounds light is a advantage. Falling from the pole to 7th isn't.

Bottom line, if it hadn't of happened you and numerous others would have complained that I won while starting from the back of a 38 car field (which was very possible). If I hadn't of spun you and numerous others would've complained that a MC car led from start to finish. I guess this way you have something to complain about. Suggestion, write a letter to SCCA and tell them how you feel. I can tell you from past experience that it won't do you any good but hey, knock yourself out.

It was your mistake that caused you to fall from p1. The advantage you gained was starting 7th instead of 39th.

I wouldn't complain about you starting from the rear and winning, I would have applauded.

I wouldn't complain about a MC car leading from start to finish, I'm a fan of the package.

Go back and read the posts that I have made on this thread. I was pointing out the fact that folks were squabbling over a difference in trap speeds, given so many variables. All while ignoring the fact that you were allowed to start 32 positions above where the rules state you should have started, and were only given a 10 second penalty.

[clint]

6.5.2.C. mentioned in the guidelines covers sub 1-4, does it not? Even so, like you said they are guidelines. What the hell is the logic of stating the purpose of said guidelines is for consistency if, by their very nature, guidelines provide for inconsistency?

There's a difference between criticism and well-founded criticism. At least if the application of rules and penalties are rigid, there is no appearance of favoritism or politics.

Suggestion: Write SCCA........ you stand a lot better chance of someone caring about what you're saying. No one on this forum made the decision so you're basically typing things no one cares about to begin with. If you showed up to the track with a car every once in a while you might be subject to some sort of ruling at some point resulting in some familiarity of how the rules work, are interpreted , how the judgements come out and why they end up that way.

[clint]

It was your mistake that caused you to fall from p1. The advantage you gained was starting 7th instead of 39th.

I wouldn't complain about you starting from the rear and winning, I would have applauded.

I wouldn't complain about a MC car leading from start to finish, I'm a fan of the package.

Go back and read the posts that I have made on this thread. I was pointing out the fact that folks were squabbling over a difference in trap speeds, given so many variables. All while ignoring the fact that you were allowed to start 32 positions above where the rules state you should have started, and were only given a 10 second penalty.

It would've been 38th, not 39th if there's 38 in the field and I simply move to a different position the number of cars don't increase

I'm well aware of who you are.

People on this forum (with the exception of a few and certianly NON that are posting) has access to the real info that count. People (strokers) can argue trap speeds all they want but unless you know what the speed was off of the previous turn you're just posting opinions.

Again, not a performance advantage.

[Daryl DeArman]

Suggestion: Write SCCA........ you stand a lot better chance of someone caring about what you're saying. No one on this forum made the decision so you're basically typing things no one cares about to begin with. If you showed up to the track with a car every once in a while you might be subject to some sort of ruling at some point resulting in some familiarity of how the rules work, are interpreted , how the judgements come out and why they end up that way.

You know, I was a fan. Liked the passion/emotion in your victory interview. Won't take anything away from your ability or accomplishments. However, I am beginning to understand why some of the 2s/MC atmosphere is what it is. You can't even understand when someone is trying to learn the logic behind certain decisions and was on your side. Done.

[clint]

You know, I was a fan. Liked the passion/emotion in your victory interview. Won't take anything away from your ability or accomplishments. However, I am beginning to understand why some of the 2s/MC atmosphere is what it is. You can't even understand when someone is trying to learn the logic behind certain decisions and was on your side. Done.

Its scca , logic is rarely involved.

If you knew me personally you wouldn't be offended. Jeff Jorgenson said it the best at the Runoffs..........."I understand you , most everyone else doesn't ,but I do".

[cory mcleod]

From the guidelines that Peter O. posted:

2. Improving position during the pace lap (GCR 6.5.2.C.) [NOTE: This includes regaining grid position during the pace lap and false starts.]
Either:
a. Loss of greater of one more than the number of positions gained or two positions,
b. Open Black Flag with stop-and-go


Seems pretty clear to me.

[bluterek155]

It was at the end of the Runoffs when the ruling was made. The officials were wore out after a week of racing and racers acting like spoiled kids. They are people and make mistakes especially after a long week like that. I know a few of the Officials that were at the Runoffs and respect them as most have raced and still race.

Did anyone at the race protest or was it brought up by the Officials? Did Sven or Steve care to protest it? You can see how there would be a difference there. I would be willing to bet Sven did not say a word other than "hell yeah give me my big ass trophy to take home". There was 30+ other racers with I assume 30+ more entrants who could have protested and maybe it would have gotten more attention. IF big IF no other party complained why take away a Runoffs win from the guy who was clearly the fastest all week. They gave him his punishment witch was 10 seconds and other things from what I have heard but dont know for sure.
I thought the start was strange and the last thing I expected was to see a pink car on my inside in T1. I thought I was clear of Clint for at least 3 laps knowing he spun. I assumed he was starting at the back. Yes, per the rules he should have started at the back or had a stop and go. It was a mistake by the Officials but they missed it, Clint could have argued that he would have still won after a stop and go after lap 2. Maybe that is why he got the 10 seconds who knows? We were not in the meetings and will never know. Every race has what ifs in the results its part of racing. As racers we must live it. What if I hadnt spun? What if Cals engine would have lasted? What if what if what if.

If you want to say his win has an * by it that is your choice. Not sure he cares.


We did put on one heck of a show and made the class look great until all this started. Its clear the rest of us have some work to do to catch Clint and hopefully enough guys got to Cali to put on another good show but from the sounds of it its going to be a small turn out for all classes.

PS I still love my car and driving in the class and would recommend to anyone looking at low cost racing classes!

[Peter Olivola]

Guidelines. Guidelines. Not authoritarian, jack booted, absolutes.

From the guidelines that Peter O. posted:

2. Improving position during the pace lap (GCR 6.5.2.C.) [NOTE: This includes regaining grid position during the pace lap and false starts.]
Either:
a. Loss of greater of one more than the number of positions gained or two positions,
b. Open Black Flag with stop-and-go


Seems pretty clear to me.

[cory mcleod]

Guidelines. Guidelines. Not authoritarian, jack booted, absolutes.

Duh! I understand the definition of a guideline. I'm sure the SCCA made these "guidelines" instead of "rules" as a CYA to keep them out of legal trouble. Selectively enforcing "guidelines" or unintentionally not following them may make members mad, but it's much less likely to get you sued.

I also have no problem with the officials at the Runoffs. They did a great job all week, and shouldn't be blamed for missing one on Sunday afternoon. Barry is right - protests would have answered the question. The race results are final. Clint was the fastest all week and probably would have won regardless, but none of us will ever know for sure.

Cory

[Jnovak]

That's the only point I wanted to have someone admit to. Right now everyone thinks that the reason the four strokes are winning or are so fast is because of top end. When you post ONLY top end numbers and nothing else it gives the view that that the four strokes have no other way of winning other than to use the top speed. I get pretty irritated when someone says that they catch the four strokes in a turn but then the four strokes leave them in a straight away. This past week has highlighted this isn't the case through sector times, videos and eye witness accounts.

The other point that must be made is that the 2 strokes and their CVT transmissions have much more variable performance based on weather conditions than the 4 stroke motors. The 4 stroke MC motors are pretty much spot on for performance all the time.

[Peter Olivola]

That isn't the primary reason they're guidelines. The GCR is written in such a way that stewards have the opportunity to apply judgement in certain areas. The guidelines are a reflection of that philosophy.

Duh! I understand the definition of a guideline. I'm sure the SCCA made these "guidelines" instead of "rules" as a CYA to keep them out of legal trouble. Selectively enforcing "guidelines" or unintentionally not following them may make members mad, but it's much less likely to get you sued.

I also have no problem with the officials at the Runoffs. They did a great job all week, and shouldn't be blamed for missing one on Sunday afternoon. Barry is right - protests would have answered the question. The race results are final. Clint was the fastest all week and probably would have won regardless, but none of us will ever know for sure.

Cory

[clint]

The other point that must be made is that the 2 strokes and their CVT transmissions have much more variable performance based on weather conditions than the 4 stroke motors. The 4 stroke MC motors are pretty much spot on for performance all the time.

That's such a obvious statement that I don't know what it's aimed at. Of course the four stroke is pretty much spot on at all times. That's why the four stroke guys prefer them and the two stroke guys hate them (the majority of the two stokes, not all). I for one enjoy going to the track not having to worry about what primary spring, secondary spring, jetting, center distance, helix angle, secondary spring tension, clutch offset, primary clutch weights, primary clutch weight distribution , sheave clearance and belt length to run each session. That's all replaced by flipping my ignition switch on and pressing the start button. Oh did I mention I don't have to lift the back tires off of the ground and choke it either all while having a perfect idle? It was well known from the beginning that the MC cars would have a near perfect setup at every track and every session while the two strokes are dependent on the guy that's tuning all the above items . The two stroke community also knows that there's a major difference in the front guys tuning abilities VS the mid pack guys abilities. That's one of the main "selling" points of the MC car. The Formula 600 Challenge has clearly demonstrated that the tuning is so close between the four strokes that its only worth about 2 mph from best to worst. With the two stroke CVT setup tuning is worth about 10 mph. People will argue that all day but I've been a part of that from time to time when running a two stroke. It explains why guys that get burnt in the turns can outrun the guy with less tuning abilities than them in a straight line.

[clint]

Duh! I understand the definition of a guideline.



Cory

Then why are you still complaining about it?

[mmi16]

The real way to average speed is to not include the fastest and the slowest as they are caused by traffic conditions (draft and traffic). Try that and post it please.

Throwing out best and worst - raises most individuals AVERAGE top speed by 1/2 to 1 MPH. With the differences between individuals remaining relatively constant.

[R. Pare]

DAMN! I've run out of popcorn........

[GBugg]

DAMN! I've run out of popcorn........

I'll mail you a bag. This is likely to continue a while. lol

[ApolloKnight]

I'll mail you a bag. This is likely to continue a while. lol

I went to Costco this morning and bought a mega pack!

[ApolloKnight]

That's such a obvious statement that I don't know what it's aimed at. Of course the four stroke is pretty much spot on at all times. That's why the four stroke guys prefer them and the two stroke guys hate them (the majority of the two stokes, not all). I for one enjoy going to the track not having to worry about what primary spring, secondary spring, jetting, center distance, helix angle, secondary spring tension, clutch offset, primary clutch weights, primary clutch weight distribution , sheave clearance and belt length to run each session. That's all replaced by flipping my ignition switch on and pressing the start button. Oh did I mention I don't have to lift the back tires off of the ground and choke it either all while having a perfect idle? It was well known from the beginning that the MC cars would have a near perfect setup at every track and every session while the two strokes are dependent on the guy that's tuning all the above items . The two stroke community also knows that there's a major difference in the front guys tuning abilities VS the mid pack guys abilities. That's one of the main "selling" points of the MC car. The Formula 600 Challenge has clearly demonstrated that the tuning is so close between the four strokes that its only worth about 2 mph from best to worst. With the two stroke CVT setup tuning is worth about 10 mph. People will argue that all day but I've been a part of that from time to time when running a two stroke. It explains why guys that get burnt in the turns can outrun the guy with less tuning abilities than them in a straight line.

This is the exact reason I don’t understand why the two stroke guys are still in love with them. Is it cost of a new motor? Hell, skip *one* race in the first year and use that to buy the motor. It makes zero sense why the two stroke motors are even around now. Even at that, there is the cost of rebuilds after each race. A 4s would almost eliminate that for years...

Between all the bitching back and forth I’ve read, I have yet to see a single good excuse for having a two stroke.

[Daryl DeArman]

Between all the bitching back and forth I’ve read, I have yet to see a single good excuse for having a two stroke.

They smell better.

Tie one of those Rotax's to a proper gear box and give it modern FI and electronics.

[bluterek155]

This is the exact reason I don’t understand why the two stroke guys are still in love with them. Is it cost of a new motor? Hell, skip *one* race in the first year and use that to buy the motor. It makes zero sense why the two stroke motors are even around now. Even at that, there is the cost of rebuilds after each race. A 4s would almost eliminate that for years...

Between all the bitching back and forth I’ve read, I have yet to see a single good excuse for having a two stroke.

A few guys are so damn fast and have years of experience and engineering note books full of info and they would view it as starting all over. Its hard to argue with a few if them on that point. I have heard a few guys dont like the 3rd pedal or the paddles. I guess I can go with that one. Steve Jondal told me that the car at 875 is no fun compared to a car at 800. Others just do not like change and like the 2 strokes.

2 strokes please speak up here!

I love the fact that I do not have to worry about the list of things Clint named off it gives me more time to focus on driving and other things. My engines (minus Indy) have been very reliable and I only have to worry about gas and gearing as far as the engine is concerned. I do think over the long a MC car would be cheaper to run but I have not tried to run a 2 stroke so I could be wrong.

[clint]

They smell better.

Tie one of those Rotax's to a proper gear box and give it modern FI and electronics.

I'll give you that, that's the only thing I miss about them. Of course people that are around me has heard that from time to time also. As far as the gear box and fuel injection goes, this was suggested a long time ago using a gear box jay Novak had found on a Harley I believe. There was the same resistance to it as there is on the MC motor to this day. The fuel injection is however making its way into the minds of people in this class though. I guess the appeal of having something to "tinker" is quickly loosing its appeal. I can personally speak for at least 20 guys that are a huge fan of the fuel injection on the bike motors. I bet that if the two strokes had fuel injection it would bring the competition closer together just due to the fact it's automatically compensated without having to lift a finger. The gear boxes would certainly take a huge element out of the equation as we've seen with the MC motors when it comes to speed differential between one competitor to the next. It's so close in fact that the differential in speed is determined by the aero differences between the competitors. With a CVT and a two stroke you don't know where the difference is coming from........is it the right gear,primary spring,secondary spring,helix angle center distance, the list goes on longer than I care to type.

[clint]

A few guys are so damn fast and have years of experience and engineering note books full of info and they would view it as starting all over. Its hard to argue with a few if them on that point. I have heard a few guys dont like the 3rd pedal or the paddles. I guess I can go with that one. Steve Jondal told me that the car at 875 is no fun compared to a car at 800. Others just do not like change and like the 2 strokes.

2 strokes please speak up here!

I love the fact that I do not have to worry about the list of things Clint named off it gives me more time to focus on driving and other things. My engines (minus Indy) have been very reliable and I only have to worry about gas and gearing as far as the engine is concerned. I do think over the long a MC car would be cheaper to run but I have not tried to run a 2 stroke so I could be wrong.

I ran the two stroke/CVT setup for over ten years competitively....... they're not cheaper by no means. Having run a eBay mc motor on a majors level and being able to turn up front times for 4 years says alot when it comes to cost. I would pay for each one my front running two stroke competitors to have a two stroke motor bought off of eBay to be installed at the Runoffs. I would buy them and have them shipped to the track.It sure would make it a ton easier to beat them.

[Jnovak]

They smell better.

Tie one of those Rotax's to a proper gear box and give it modern FI and electronics.

Daryl, I have looked into this. The reality is that you would need at least a 7-8 speed trans to manage the very narrow powerband of a 2 stroke Rotax twin. Typically there is about 500 rpm or less between peak power and peak torque for these motors. With pipe work you can broaden the power band to about 1000 rpm but at a significant loss in peak power. This is why the snowmobile industry developed the CVT.

Then there is the cost associated with the trans. By the time your done you will have about $10K in the installation not counting the $6K for a prepped Rotax 593.

If there are racers who think that they MUST HAVE A CVT then I suggest that some one investigate the use of one of the modern 4 stroke Snowmobiles that are available. I have actually considered this but I think that the 6 speed 600cc bike motors are the future and are more fun and challenging to drive.

[Daryl DeArman]

The reality is that you would need at least a 7-8 speed trans to manage the very narrow powerband of a 2 stroke Rotax twin. Typically there is about 500 rpm or less between peak power and peak torque for these motors. With pipe work you can broaden the power band to about 1000 rpm but at a significant loss in peak power. This is why the snowmobile industry developed the CVT.

I was thinking a proper trans just so they "sound right" Takes out a bunch of the voodoo with clutch tuning as well.

I am surprised to learn they are so peaky. The real high dollar 250 shifter kart motors get away with a six speed trans and they are making over 360HP/Liter.

[ApolloKnight]

I ran the two stroke/CVT setup for over ten years competitively....... they're not cheaper by no means. Having run a eBay mc motor on a majors level and being able to turn up front times for 4 years says alot when it comes to cost. I would pay for each one my front running two stroke competitors to have a two stroke motor bought off of eBay to be installed at the Runoffs. I would buy them and have them shipped to the track.It sure would make it a ton easier to beat them.

My dad ran the 440's from 1987 through 1998 then ran a couple 494's through 2000. 2 Strokes, and the maintenance behind them, are the entire reason we he shelf'd the car in 2000, sold the others and then went GT racing. I can not think of a single time, nor can the log books from back then, where there was not an issue with something in the ten billion tiny parts that makes up those motors.

I can still remember him throwing a clutch across the garage wall years ago.

[Jnovak]

Throwing out best and worst - raises most individuals AVERAGE top speed by 1/2 to 1 MPH. With the differences between individuals remaining relatively constant.

Just stating that it is an accepted method statistically.

[Jnovak]

I was thinking a proper trans just so they "sound right" Takes out a bunch of the voodoo with clutch tuning as well.

I am surprised to learn they are so peaky. The real high dollar 250 shifter kart motors get away with a six speed trans and they are making over 360HP/Liter.

These motors may be more peaky than the shifter kart motors as the production CVTs are matched to the power train. I believe that the race 593 2 strokes are very peaky by trying to get Max HP and that is done on 2 strokes by making the peak torque as close to peak power as is reasonable.

Trying to get a separate 6-8 speed sequential gearbox for a reasonable price is another matter. I have looked at and contacted several manufacturers with no luck in finding anything except Harley Davidson aftermarket gearboxes but no one was interested in doing the right ratios because the quantities are so low. One of the trans manufacturers is near me and I went there to discuss the project. BIG $$$$$

[cory mcleod]

2-stroke engines lasting one weekend?

$6k prepped 593?

Is this Apex or CNN?

[clint]

2-stroke engines lasting one weekend?

$6k prepped 593?

Is this Apex or CNN?

Nope it just shows the difference between you what you call prepped and what Jay Novak calls prepped. It may explain the difference between your success VS his also. I'm not agreeing with the 6000 number but it is possible if it involved dyno tuning

[cory mcleod]

Nope it just shows the difference between you what you call prepped and what Jay Novak calls prepped. It may explain the difference between your success VS his also. I'm not agreeing with the 6000 number but it is possible if it involved dyno tuning

I was wondering how long it would take in this thread for Clint Cartman to insult me. Even though I use the same 2-stroke engine builder as Jay, I know there are ways to spend more on rebuilds than I do. I also wish it was just the engine rebuild that separates me from Brian. Here is the text of my post to the F500 Operations Costs thread.

Might be too late for additional information, but I just had my engine professionally rebuilt for the Runoffs, so this is a real number.

F500
Engine: Rotax 593
Cost: $2,100
Includes: Pistons, top end overbore, crank, RAVE valves, one used reed case, gaskets, some new hardware (for a 2-cycle engine this is a complete rebuild)
Does not include: shipping ($100 each way), dyno time

I would mention that new cylinder liners could add $350 to the cost, but none of us do that on 593s, since it's illegal.

Jay may or may not be exaggerating for his rebuilds, but I guarantee that most of the Rotaxes in the top 10 at Indy are not spending $6k.

Cory

[clint]

I was wondering how long it would take in this thread for Clint Cartman to insult me. Even though I use the same 2-stroke engine builder as Jay, I know there are ways to spend more on rebuilds than I do. I also wish it was just the engine rebuild that separates me from Brian. Here is the text of my post to the F500 Operations Costs thread.

Might be too late for additional information, but I just had my engine professionally rebuilt for the Runoffs, so this is a real number.

F500
Engine: Rotax 593
Cost: $2,100
Includes: Pistons, top end overbore, crank, RAVE valves, one used reed case, gaskets, some new hardware (for a 2-cycle engine this is a complete rebuild)
Does not include: shipping ($100 each way), dyno time

I would mention that new cylinder liners could add $350 to the cost, but none of us do that on 593s, since it's illegal.

Jay may or may not be exaggerating for his rebuilds, but I guarantee that most of the Rotaxes in the top 10 at Indy are not spending $6k.

Cory

No insults were made. You just took it as a insult. You however clearly gave a insult with your pet name for me. I will give points for saying it on this forum Vs the other one though. Typically you don't stray your insults past the "forum of five" . I will be interested to see what kind of insults or pet names you have when you see me in person again. Oh that's right, you probably won't have time to talk to anyone since you'll likely be working on clutches,jetting and trying to understand why the world is picking on you.