What would it take to get the 494 powered f500 cars back int

[Jnovak]

A real question

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET THE MANY 494 POWERED F500 CARS BACK INTO CLUB RACING??

ANY IDEAS??

[Shelly Sadwin]

Unfortunately health is keeping me off the track but hope when my friend moves closer he will get my car back on track.

[j mcfarland]

For us it's time and budget. We have two KBS's, one MK5 and the other a MK7. Both will have 494's (unless a 593 appears before the MK7 gets reassembled, I have more personal ballast attached to me!). The issue with us is that we are on a tight regional budget. Majors are just too expensive. Our hope is to get them road race capable again and pester the Vee's with them regionally!

[mmi16]

Let's not overlook that the 494 has been a legal F500 for 21 years now. It was legalized for National Competition for the 1997 season.

[Jnovak]

Let's not overlook that the 494 has been a legal F500 for 21 years now. It was legalized for National Competition for the 1997 season.

i actually knew this Chuck. Are you saying make the 593 the defacto standard?,,i have no problem with that except that there must be about 100 494s parked in garages.

[tfriest]

There are probably several reasons why people have dropped out or reduced their racing.

Time/money are probably a factor for a lot of people. The economy is coming back, but there are still a lot of people that don't have a pile of money to throw at their car.

I think SCCA has shot themselves in the foot somewhat too. The whole Regional/Majors/Super Tour split where only Super Tours count for "national" points is causing people to skip local races. There is also a group that only do enough races to qualify for the runoffs, and since many aren't planning on going to the runoffs, that equals zero races this year.

Car parity matters more for the top tier drivers compared to the people that are just wanting to go out and drive fast (as in faster than in a street car). Having a "faster" car will always cost more than having a slower (comparatively) car. I don't think we want to become a spec class, so there will always be some disparity.

I think we need to look at reducing time and money for running cars. Things that will reduce the chance of burning up a 2-cycle engine should be looked into (probably the fuel injection conversion kits that are out there would be worth investigating).

[Jnovak]

There are probably several reasons why people have dropped out or reduced their racing.

Time/money are probably a factor for a lot of people. The economy is coming back, but there are still a lot of people that don't have a pile of money to throw at their car.

I think SCCA has shot themselves in the foot somewhat too. The whole Regional/Majors/Super Tour split where only Super Tours count for "national" points is causing people to skip local races. There is also a group that only do enough races to qualify for the runoffs, and since many aren't planning on going to the runoffs, that equals zero races this year.

Car parity matters more for the top tier drivers compared to the people that are just wanting to go out and drive fast (as in faster than in a street car). Having a "faster" car will always cost more than having a slower (comparatively) car. I don't think we want to become a spec class, so there will always be some disparity.

I think we need to look at reducing time and money for running cars. Things that will reduce the chance of burning up a 2-cycle engine should be looked into (probably the fuel injection conversion kits that are out there would be worth investigating).

Are there fuel injection kits for the 494? I know there are fuel injected 600cc 2 stroke but not the approved 593 engine.

I am getting the vibe from this forum and another that the 494 engine has had its day an that the racers do not wat to spend $$$ on them????

[mmi16]

Are there fuel injection kits for the 494? I know there are fuel injected 600cc 2 stroke but not the approved 593 engine.

I am getting the vibe from this forum and another that the 494 engine has had its day an that the racers do not wat to spend $$$ on them????

The 494 was not in production very long to start with. The engine has been legal in one form or another for 21 years. The supply of them at best is limited and at worst unobtainable.

Not having a 494 any longer, I have no idea how the parts supply is for them.

[GAC]

A real question

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET THE MANY 494 POWERED F500 CARS BACK INTO CLUB RACING??

ANY IDEAS??

Don't make it appear that you need a 600 to be competitive. If people feel they can be competitive with a 494, they will be more likely to run them or buy them.

[Jnovak]

Don't make it appear that you need a 600 to be competitive. If people feel they can be competitive with a 494, they will be more likely to run them or buy them.

sorrybut a 494 built to the current rules cannot be competitive with either of 2 600cc motor types that are currently legal in the class.

By that i mean:
The 600cc Rotax 593 2 cylinder 2 stroke engine at 115 hp at 850lbs
The 600cc Suzuki 4 cylinder 4 stroke motorcycle engine at 107-108 hp (the most commonly used mc engine) at 875 lbs

the 500cc Rotax 494 2 cylinder 2 stroke engine at 100 hp at 800 lbs. This engine has been out of production for nearly 20 years This was,for nearly 20 years, the 100% engine of choice for the class.

There are several other variables that have a dramatic effect on the performance of engines used in the car.

[GAC]

sorrybut a 494 built to the current rules cannot be competitive with either of 2 600cc motor types that are currently legal in the class.

By that i mean:
The 600cc Rotax 593 2 cylinder 2 stroke engine at 115 hp at 850lbs
The 600cc Suzuki 4 cylinder 4 stroke motorcycle engine at 107-108 hp (the most commonly used mc engine) at 875 lbs

the 500cc Rotax 494 2 cylinder 2 stroke engine at 100 hp at 800 lbs. This engine has been out of production for nearly 20 years This was,for nearly 20 years, the 100% engine of choice for the class.

There are several other variables that have a dramatic effect on the performance of engines used in the car.

That would suggest that the weights or restrictors should be changed if you want to get more 494 powered cars back in, which was the question I was answering.

[Jnovak]

That would suggest that the weights or restrictors should be changed if you want to get more 494 powered cars back in, which was the question I was answering.

got it, thanks

[tfriest]

Is it true that there are "lots of 494 cars sitting in garages"?

You do have to rebuild engines after a while, especially 2-strokes. How many race-ready 494 cars are there, really?

Dave and I have 3-4 494 engines sitting around, but only 1 of them is race-ready (with a weekend on it), the others need work (one has a season+ of races on it, another has a broken engine mount, etc.).

Allowing the 1mm overbore for 494s (and 493s?) might get that number up and make the engines more competitive. Or, it might just be that people who want to road race have already upgraded to 593s.

[Ocho]

My thought behind the letter for the 1mm overbore is to allow for those of us with 494s to extend the life a little. really makes it easy to get pistons and clean up old jugs if we can bore them over. The current rule as written only allows for .010" overbore and only the OEM cast pistons (with a specific part number) are allowed. 593s are allowed a forged aftermarket piston at .010", but not the 494...


anyway, I think the 494 has had it's run, but changing a couple rules allows car owners with those engines a few more years of fun before eventually sourcing a 593 (if they want to stay in 2stroke).

Brad.

[B17overhead]

This is a very simple question with a very limited number of acceptable answers.

Classic answers to pick from:
You either make the fast guys slower or the slow guys faster.
Making the slow guys faster is the only answer that might keep the majority of the currently participating drivers happy and still willing to participate.
Making the fast guys slower is the least fun in any form of racing.
Most, perhaps not all people race in amateur formula car racing because its fun, not to help their sponsor sell more cars on Monday.

BTW, The one most significant tool that nobody wants to talk about is limiting aero advantage of the faster motored cars.
That would absolutely make more sense than playing with min weight or motor restictor rules.

Example below: And this is JUST an example!
I personally do not advocate this since it also would potentially annoy too many people and would not help class growth either.

1. Take the permitted diffuser length to something like the traditional old cars have,
then, if not enough drop in lap times for big motors,
2. Eliminate sports car noses.
Again, these restrictions would just for big motor motorcycle or the large 2-stroke (593 cc)

These would be very cheap steps to take to slow down just the big motored cars (593 cc 2-stroke or 600 cc Motorcycle)

It would also probably make the SCCA happier to not have 160 mph (at Daytona) tiny little

formula cars lurking out there as potential widow makers.

Taking additional weight off 494/493 cars unfortunately isn't good for the current cornering speed discrepancy.
Some discrepancy is good, and it probably makes for more exciting racing, but taking even more weight off the 494/493 motor cars will probably make the disparity too much.


Add HP to 494/493?
Probably cheaper to convert to a 593cc motor.

Big motor 593cc Clutching and pipe packages are already developed and proven.
Would have to start new development cycle ($) on pipes, carb jetting, and clutch tuning for ANYTHING you do to perk up HP of 494/493. and you have to do on the 493 cc as well (and all differently, since exahaust parts don't interchange) since there are a lot of 493 out there too. I myself have 2 of them and I love that motor. Definitely more modern than the old 494 also.

Honestly, there is no rule change solution that will actually help overall class population. Leave it alone.

QED

[Stan Clayton]

Honestly, there is no rule change solution that will actually help overall class population. Leave it alone.

What about lowering the minimum weight for the 493/4 cars? Would it help bring cars out? Is it generally practicable?

[Jnovak]

Test

[Jnovak]

What about lowering the minimum weight for the 493/4 cars? Would it help bring cars out? Is it generally practicable?

Stan very tough to lower the min weight below 800 lbs.
When Brian won the Runoffs in 2007 he weighed 150 lbs with 5 lbs of ballast he and the car weighed in at 803 lbs. This was also a very minimalist car

That is the reality of lowering the min weight, and lighter weight will not help the differences in top end that 10 -15 hp gives.

The reality is that the best 494 powered cars are down about 5-7 mph down from the 600 powered cars. Depending on the length of the straight.

More power for the 494 is the only way to equalize the cars imo

Not an easy task in a super low bucks class.

We are working on a relatively low bucks solution to get more power for the 494.

[Stan Clayton]

Thanks Jay. I was afraid that would be the answer.

[B17overhead]

People aren't thinking this through.

The equal HP 493 (to 494) would need help same time as 494 since there are a lot of those cars around as well.

And of the 2 , the 493 is the more modern and better motor of the 2.
(according to BHueling, anyway).

Brad asked what I thought of a 600 cc displacement version of the old 494 and I wasn't very interested.

The 493 reed valve motor fits my chassis and the carbs are significantly lower on the older technology 494 rotary valve motor, so it really sucks (that's a carb joke haha) in terms of replacing a 493 with an "improved 494"

Easiest cheapest replacement is still 593.

Again, if you have to buy a pipe, carb innards, and re-clutch anyway for an "improved" 494 or 493,
why not buy the proven setup, a whole 593 package?


Also suggest that if this topic truly intrigues you Stan, you read every post in the entire thread.

[Stan Clayton]

Also suggest that if this topic truly intrigues you Stan, you read every post in the entire thread.

I did, and noted your and GAC's opinions. What I didn't see until Jay addressed it directly was the question of practicality.

[Jnovak]

That would suggest that the weights or restrictors should be changed if you want to get more 494 powered cars back in, which was the question I was answering.

i have no problem with reducing restrictors on the MC and the 593 2 stroke. However the Club [SCCA] is against this.

[B17overhead]

OK, nice to see SCCA agrees its a good approach to not try to slow down the current "big motor" participants.

Some comments on restrictors.
You will see where it leads in a moment.
The current size restrictor already hurts the 593 2-stroke in terms of cooling. The motors rely upon air-fuel mixture for cooling and its already a problem for a 593 to keep its crankcase cool enough not to lose a large chunk of HP. Logically, one would try to fit larger, better engineered radiators and improve airflow if more restriction were mandated. $$$

Sure, you can look for a cost effective way to make the 494 (and 493 too hopefully) equal to the 593 and 600cc motorcycle engines, but it seems backwards and not very attractive if it involves money and time and in the end the 494 (and 493) are still not very competitive. On top of that, more HP means more cooling, so I don't see this path being any better than doing a complete 593 swap.

Instead of that approach, a swap to 593 would be much more attractive to those with 494 or 493 and get them out there on the track to try it the 593 restrictor were no longer required.

That would even bring out the discouraged 593 owners who aren't running or running very much.

[Jnovak]

OK, nice to see SCCA agrees its a good approach to not try to slow down the current "big motor" participants.

Some comments on restrictors.
You will see where it leads in a moment.
The current size restrictor already hurts the 593 2-stroke in terms of cooling. The motors rely upon air-fuel mixture for cooling and its already a problem for a 593 to keep its crankcase cool enough not to lose a large chunk of HP. Logically, one would try to fit larger, better engineered radiators and improve airflow if more restriction were mandated. $$$

Sure, you can look for a cost effective way to make the 494 (and 493 too hopefully) equal to the 593 and 600cc motorcycle engines, but it seems backwards and not very attractive if it involves money and time and in the end the 494 (and 493) are still not very competitive. On top of that, more HP means more cooling, so I don't see this path being any better than doing a complete 593 swap.

Instead of that approach, a swap to 593 would be much more attractive to those with 494 or 493 and get them out there on the track to try it the 593 restrictor were no longer required.

That would even bring out the discouraged 593 owners who aren't running or running very much.

a 593 swap from a 493 or a 494, costs the following: the motor, pipe, isolated engine mount, cooling system changes and clutchs costs over a total of $6000. I know because that is the exact price i paid Hulings for the entire package on our Runoffs winning Novakar that dominated at Laguna Seca in 2014. Fastest every session on the f500 pole by 1.1 seconds over Clint McMahan's F600 that i converted to MC power and this was with 30mm restrictors as opposed to the current 29mm restrictors used on the MC engined cars. Also please note that that was the only race with that combination engine in the car. So get this: completly new zero miles, zero laps,593 combination arrives at Laguna and is fastest in every session and wins the race by 16 seconds. We could have raced with any of several MC powered cars that were offered us but my calculation indicated that the restricted 593 combination was the advantage combination, assuming you get the clutches right on and imo the 593 combination is still the right combination now that the restrictors are 1 mm smaller at 29 mm for the 600 cc MC engines

Btw the unrestricted 593 only has 3-4 more hp than the restricted 593.

[TDI PILOT]

OK, nice to see SCCA agrees its a good approach to not try to slow down the current "big motor" participants.


The current size restrictor already hurts the 593 2-stroke in terms of cooling. The motors rely upon air-fuel mixture for cooling and its already a problem for a 593 to keep its crankcase cool enough not to lose a large chunk of HP. Logically, one would try to fit larger, better engineered radiators and improve airflow if more restriction were mandated. $$$


-So a 593 with no restrictors that makes 4 HP more will run cooler? I disagree, sorry but that's not an accurate statement.



Sure, you can look for a cost effective way to make the 494 (and 493 too hopefully) equal to the 593 and 600cc motorcycle engines, but it seems backwards and not very attractive if it involves money and time and in the end the 494 (and 493) are still not very competitive. On top of that, more HP means more cooling, so I don't see this path being any better than doing a complete 593 swap.

Adding twin pipes and larger radiators to a 494 = <$1700 in parts. A 593 conversion is a lot more hassle and cost, plus you still need the larger radiators to make one cool correctly. Give Mike Mueller twin pipes yielding 8-10 more HP and see what happens. All of us "big motor" guys will be crying for mercy. That being said I'm still all for it.



That would even bring out the discouraged 593 owners who aren't running or running very much.

I believe the majority of people with parked cars are NOT 593 owners, they are guys that have older 494 cars that lost interest or simply don't want to pay to go racing anymore. Its expensive to run a top notch car on fresh tires at every Majors weekend...period.

-Eric

[B17overhead]

I think Eric is right on that lack of interest/participation is based on simple increased race costs that are independent of motor performance.

On top of that, no one has mentioned that a number (possibly large percentage??) of cars sitting in garages are old or very old designs (along with their old motors) and would still be slow on the track regardless of any motor upgrade. The prospect of still being a backmarker after a motor upgrade can't be too enticing.

By the way, no one said ANY of the parked cars were 593's.

Sorry for not saying it better. To clarify what I said: if you have people with old motors you are trying to get out on the track once again, it makes it more attractive if you increase the probability of going faster with whatever investment in new motor they make.
It just sweetens the pot a little if you ditch the restrictor.

To clarify some of the other things I mentioned:

All I know is that various racers say otherwise on the 2-stroke restrictor.
The mixture must be intentionally run overly rich to at least partly make up for less total mixture passing through motor, or the engine runs hotter. In any case, that was not the important point I was trying to make (as explained above)


As far as Jay's cost to convert to 593 goes, it is probably one end of the scale.

But it was obviously well worth every penny.
I kinda wonder if even just 2 other guys had made the same modest investment the podium would have been stuffed with 593's? That was a track, weather/temperature , and time in history (bike motored cars had problems) that favored that engine .

[Jnovak]

It just sweetens the pot a little if you ditch the restrictor.

I have ben informed that the club will not change the 593 or the 600cc mc specs period

As far as Jay's cost to convert to 593 goes, it is probably one end of the scale.

Who out there has done a 593 convert for less than $6000 parts cost?

This was all new parts because the car was a 10 year old 494 powered car and we had to purchase all new pars including a compltely new cooling sysstem that iincluding 2 new rads and all new plumbing. On top of that we did it in between the last national and leaving for the Runoffs.

And what would be the claim now for getting equivalent (or some % less than 100% of equivalent?) performance to a 593 out of a 494 or 493 for a lot less money than a 593 conversion from the very same engine builder?

actually can be done for way less than a 593 conversion

[B17overhead]

I agree some level increased perf. can be had for cheap.
just like people can do a 593 conversion for a whole lot less than you spent.

But why would they do any motor upgrade at all if they can't afford tires, as Eric suggested?
Wait, did I just ask that?
of course some people would.
They would be happy to become the new kings of drifting!

Jay, you are a good guy and friend, and I hope you don't take offense, but I have serious doubts even a zero cost upgrade to a 494 (and why not the 493 also?) would move the needle much, if any, off empty in terms of class participation.

Curious, if SCCA so adamant about not changing 593 2-stroke or 600cc MC engine specs, how can they reconcile mixing in some unknown 494 upgrade in the same breath?

[Jnovak]

I agree some level increased perf. can be had for cheap.
just like people can do a 593 conversion for a whole lot less than you spent.

But why would they do any motor upgrade at all if they can't afford tires, as Eric suggested?
Wait, did I just ask that?
of course some people would.
They would be happy to become the new kings of drifting!

Jay, you are a good guy and friend, and I hope you don't take offense, but I have serious doubts even a zero cost upgrade to a 494 (and why not the 493 also?) would move the needle much, if any, off empty in terms of class participation.

Then again, maybe this thread you started has offered some useful statistics.
What appears illogical to me might be just fine for others.
(see musing about upgraded motor on old tires)

you may be right on all point Chuck and sometimes i agree with you i am simply trying to help a great class. F500 is about 2 seconds a lap faster than a $75k FF car!

I have been informed that there are over 80 494 powered cars parked in garages.. If we could get 20 of them racing again that would be great. So all this discussion is mute if the class is gone because it does not mske good enough entry numbers and is gone as a national/majors class.o

Btw. The fastest top speed at the indy Runoffs was done by a narrow nosed car built by its owner, for what thats worth, he knows what he is doing.

[Jnovak]

More suggestions and ideas from F500 racers PLEASE!

[B17overhead]

OK on your mission Jay, you (and I, unfortunately) are type of people who will probably die one day trying to save somebody else.

I've just tried to help by pointing out some things that might help the basic understanding of what makes this watch tick as different ideas are kicked around.

I have to admit that it shook me up to read Eric's take on it that people are parking their cars because they are being killed off by the increased cost of racing regardless of their competitiveness (motor and chassis).
I had no idea it could be that bad.

Is it, really? I guess you need more input on that.

But then again, if there is enough of a carrot: "I might win now or at least finish a LOT better now") some might mortgage the ranch and go racing again anyway.

so, OK your thinking is fine...on that.
But are those old motors in older design cars that haven't a chance anyway?

I'll take the bait on this one you tossed in and disagree that it means anything, you old teaser...
Yes, that particular narrow nose F500 at Indy last year had a high top speed, but not a top lap time
Was that excellent top speed in spite of that car's increased tire drag ?
Could it have been higher still with a sports car nose?

There are noses and then there are noses.
In old DSR land, the Arkens had a joke about a nice looking intuitively aero "looking" nose update to an AMAC that turned out to NOT be the fast nose to run: "Yeah, that's the pretty slow nose"

[holmberg]

If the issue is, as some have said, not the performance differences, but rather the costs, then perhaps the tire costs should be discussed. I'm told the tires are $730 a set and only last 8 heat cycles--so a new set of tires every event.

The Hoosier R60 compound should at least double the number of heat cycles. That would bring total operational costs down to the level of FF, and less than FV (but still more than FST).

It might also slow them down since the cars would exit the corners at a lower speed. This might address a (perceived?) safety issue of the cars going too fast for their chassis designs.

Greg

[TDI PILOT]

If the issue is, as some have said, not the performance differences, but rather the costs, then perhaps the tire costs should be discussed. I'm told the tires are $730 a set and only last 8 heat cycles--so a new set of tires every event.

A mounted and balanced set of tires with disposal for the old ones is definitely over $800..I throw away the receipts so my wife cant find them. I can't remember the exact number, but I'm positive its over $800

The Hoosier R60 compound should at least double the number of heat cycles. That would bring total operational costs down to the level of FF, and less than FV (but still more than FST).

A F500 will have a VERY hard time getting R60 compound tires into their sweet spot for temps where they actually grip decent. On days under 65 degrees-F, I struggle to get the R35 compound up above 170 degrees. The cars just don't weigh enough.

[Jnovak]

Unfortunately health is keeping me off the track but hope when my friend moves closer he will get my car back on track.

get well and go racing.

[Jnovak]

If the issue is, as some have said, not the performance differences, but rather the costs, then perhaps the tire costs should be discussed. I'm told the tires are $730 a set and only last 8 heat cycles--so a new set of tires every event.

The Hoosier R60 compound should at least double the number of heat cycles. That would bring total operational costs down to the level of FF, and less than FV (but still more than FST).

It might also slow them down since the cars would exit the corners at a lower speed. This might address a (perceived?) safety issue of the cars going too fast for their chassis designs.

Greg

you may have nailed it Greg. The costs to compete have increased a lot in the last 5-8 years and of course this has a big impact on a low bucks class like F500. If you cant afford all the other associated costs to race your not going to upgrade your car either.

[B17overhead]

This may be one of those times where one should resort to a more surgical study of the problem to properly find a solution.
In other words, get the list of names and contact info on those 100 old 494/493 "small-motored" car owners and call them up or mail/email each and every one.

One on one interchange also would allow a more candid conversation with each than a public forum like this one permits as well as providing more solid statistical data.

1. One potentially better solution to hard compound tires is to look into bulk buy discounts of the one most popular compound.

2. Organizing a network of "hand-me-down" fresh used tires would also help.

In every class, there are those can afford new tires more often than they wear out in order to ensure the potential to run at the very top all the time.

They can do their part to save F500 from extinction by arranging for those in need to take the "gently used" ones off their hands for little or no cost.

3. Organize a network of "tow buddies" These are small cars and there may be a lot of untapped opportunities for sharing a trailer, fuel costs, and driving chores

A new forum heading might be requested on Apexspeed called something like "Tow share". There, one could post on an ongoing basis things like "I'm in the St. Paul area, anyone want to share a space in my trailer and split fuel costs and driving chores to COTA next month?"