494/493 Engines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan McMahan

I would like to see the 493/494 get on par with the 593.

---

Dan:

This is topic for a new thread because it’s unrelated to F500 Carbs!

Years of endlessly discussing this topic online is pointless and it has solved nothing in the past!

Per the current F500 rules the Rotax Model 593 Engine has mandatory 25mm restrictors in an 850lbs. car and the 600cc Motorcycle Engine now has a mandatory 28mm restrictors in a 900lbs. car. There is no 114hp or 115hp standard or target in the F500 class that I’m aware of. In fact, show me any SCCA CRB/BoD approved document that defines any engine horsepower standard or target for any engine in the F500 class. IT DOESN’T EXIST to the best of my knowledge!

The only way you can change the rules is to write letters to the CRB! Endless talking for years and years is a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing IMO!

Thanks, I appreciate your support for the 494/493 Engines!

Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

Dan:

This is topic for a new thread because it’s unrelated to F500 Carbs!

Years of endlessly discussing this topic online is pointless and it has solved nothing in the past!

Per the current F500 rules the Rotax Model 593 Engine has mandatory 25mm restrictors in an 850lbs. car and the 600cc Motorcycle Engine now has a mandatory 28mm restrictors in a 900lbs. car. There is no 114hp or 115hp standard or target in the F500 class that I’m aware of. In fact, show me any SCCA CRB/BoD approved document that defines any engine horsepower standard or target for any engine in the F500 class. IT DOESN’T EXIST to the best of my knowledge!

The only way you can change the rules is to write letters to the CRB! Endless talking for years and years is a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing IMO!

Thanks, I appreciate your support for the 494/493 Engines!

Scott

---

You are correct in that the scca never defines a hp target. What they typically do is to make restrictions such as weight and other restrictions that limit performance. Racers are then free to continue development within those and other restrictions that are within the rules, such as no mods to production parts allowed.

To fully understand the rules requires a lot of study and not just in the section for your class!

There has been some talk about the 593 engines breaking their cranks. Well perhaps Rotax knows something about their engines and that is why they put the rubber damper on the TRA clutches.

Most of the time, you can get away with just willy-nilly changing parts on engines. But some times it is best to do what the manufacturer does. They put that rubber damper on for a reason.

So lets not go crazy and start limiting what RPM the engine can run at. Maybe just using the clutch as intended by Rotax is the answer.

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

Dan:

This is topic for a new thread because it’s unrelated to F500 Carbs!

Years of endlessly discussing this topic online is pointless and it has solved nothing in the past!

Per the current F500 rules the Rotax Model 593 Engine has mandatory 25mm restrictors in an 850lbs. car and the 600cc Motorcycle Engine now has a mandatory 28mm restrictors in a 900lbs. car. There is no 114hp or 115hp standard or target in the F500 class that I’m aware of. In fact, show me any SCCA CRB/BoD approved document that defines any engine horsepower standard or target for any engine in the F500 class. IT DOESN’T EXIST to the best of my knowledge!

The only way you can change the rules is to write letters to the CRB! Endless talking for years and years is a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing IMO!

Thanks, I appreciate your support for the 494/493 Engines!

Scott

---

Scott you need to write letters to the CRB suggesting thinks that will help the 500cc engines to be competitive. The only thing i can think of is twin pipes. I have tried that with no help from the CRB, it might help if you wrie a letter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Scott you need to write letters to the CRB suggesting thinks that will help the 500cc engines to be competitive. The only thing i can think of is twin pipes. I have tried that with no help from the CRB, it might help if you wrie a letter.

---

Posted by Jay N on F500.us
Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:21 pm

Re: Twin pipes for 500cc 2 strokes

the 494/493 cars... cannot compete under the current RULES. Brad Hulings stated to me that twin pipes on the 494-493 will not get the job done Stay tuned
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FASTRACK September 2018
CLUB RACING BOARD MINUTES | August 7, 2018

Not Recommended
F5
1. #24580 (Jay Novak) Allow Twin Pipes on 500cc 2 Stroke Engines in F500
Thank you for your letter. The CRB does not recommend this change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FASTRACK December 2019
CLUB RACING BOARD MINUTES | November 5, 2019

Not Recommended
F5
2. #27664 (S. Jay Novak) F500 in Trouble!
Thank you for your letter. The Club Racing Board does not recommend these changes. The Formula/Sports Racing Committee capably advises the Club Racing Board on matters relating to the F500 class and there is no plan to create an F500 ad hoc committee. The Club Racing Board will continue to monitor class performance and will make appropriate, data-based adjustments as necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTED by Jay Novak on the SCCA F500 & FModified Facebook Page
January 1 2020 at 10:48 AM

4. I will also propose that the 494 and the 493 engines be allowed twin pipes but no internal mods allowed

I think that this proposal just might save F500 as an SCCA racing class, if we do nothing the class will be gone within 2 years as the current entry numbers are very poor.

• Jay Beckley Jay, do you have data on a twin pipe that would support keeping the 494 relevant and competitive in the class? Does someone make a pipe already!
• Jay Novak No, not yet
• Jay Beckley Jay Novak thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FASTRACK February 2020
CLUB RACING BOARD MINUTES | January 7, 2020

Not Recommended
F5
2. #28068 (Jay Novak) Modification to Letter #27664
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay you’re the only one in this class that I’m aware of that has submitted any letters to the CRB related to the 493/493 engines in the last six years. I applaud your attempts to make changes to the GCR to improve the competitiveness of the 494/493 engines. But I’m sorry, I don’t support twin pipes as a technical solution. I support the FSRC & CRB rejection of your technical proposal for twin pipes related to the 494/493 engines.

The people with 2-Stroke technical expertise that I’ve consulted with have 15-20 years of snowmobile racing experience. They’re in aggrement with your 2-Stroke snowmobile technical expert (Brad Hulings) twin pipes won’t get the job done (as stated above).

So, I have no interest in discussing or arguing the technical merits of twin pipes. Plus, the development & purchase cost of twin pipes will probably be beyond what the majority of low budget F500 494/493 car owners can afford or want to pay.

You’ve stated above you have no data to support a technical argument for twin pipes as a solution. I also have no data to support a rigorous technical argument for twin pipes. Therefore, it’s impossible for me to write and submit a letter to the CRB that has technical merit, based on supporting data that I don't have, that argues for twin pipes, where the proposal has a chance of being approved.

The FSRC & CRB has rejected twin pipes as a solution multiple times. So, again IMO endless discussions of twin pipes will accomplish nothing when they’ve already been rejected by the CRB several times.

I have been writing letters to the CRB. On January 25th I submitted a 2-page proposal to the CRB:

#28359 “Proposed rule changes related to External Jetting Devices”

This proposal makes an argument for in cockpit adjustment of External Jetting Devices and against any high cost fully automated adjustment system that effects air/fuel ratio. I have heard no response back from the FSRC or CRB on the status of my current proposal. So, until my current proposal to the FSRC & CRB has been reviewed and they’ve made their decision I’m not interested in writing and submitting a new proposal at this time.

When my current proposal to the CRB has been completed then I might submit my own technical proposal with the supporting data to the CRB for the 494/493 engines. I have made no final decisions yet!

Scott

Correction: Aaron Ellis submitted a proposal that was approved by the CRB to reduce the minimum weight of the 493 powered cars from 825 lbs. to 800 lbs. To the best of my knowledge that’s the only performance adjustment that’s been made to the 494/493 powered cars in over 10 years.

Scott

I believe that there are kits that allow the displacement of the 493 and or the 494 engine displacement to near 600cc. I am not aware of the costs to build these engines. Check with Brad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Go here

WWW.crbscca

it will take about 10 minutes

---

It takes longer than 10 minutes to write a well thought out proposal that has technical merit with all the supporting information and data needed to get it approved. I want the FSRC & CRB to take my proposals seriously plus spent their valuable time reviewing and considering what's in the proposal. So, I have to be willing to spend the time required! If I write a 10-minute proposal I’ll probably get a rejection in 10 minutes.

Scott

If there is any interest in the FSRAC OR THE CRB. You wiill get a note or a phone call asking for more info. For example, when i first proposed the use of the 494 engine i had zero data except that Bombardier would support the sale of engines and parts if approved. About 1 week later i received a call from a technical manager in the club and he explained what i needed to do do. I then purchased a dyno and the rest is history. By the time the engine was approved i was out $6k. Luckly 4 members of the F500 community donated a total of about $1500 to the project so in the end i was only out a measly $4500 plus about 6 month of work. So the reality is that i know how the system functions.

Go fo it dude!

I agree that twin pipes alone will not get there at the current weights. I am quite certain that the 593 with its current combination will pound the 28 mm restricted 600 cc engined cars at 900lbs into the ground but frankly it will not matter because the class will not make the required minimum entry numbers this year.

I suggest that you talk to Brad H. He knows a ton!

My current proposal is being reviewed by the FSRC. I put all the supporting information and data in the proposal so the FRSC could make a good informed decision with all the supporting material and arguments I could think of.

I drove to Michigan in 2015, I had a face to face discussion with Brad Hulings. He wasn’t friendly, pleasant, or helpful, the discussion didn’t go well. I have my own engine builder who also has a ton knowledge, that I trust, and can comunicate with.

Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp)
[U

"Proposed rule changes related to External Jetting Devices[/U][/B]”

This proposal makes an argument for in cockpit adjustment of External Jetting Devices and against any high cost fully automated adjustment system that effects air/fuel ratio. I have heard no response back from the FSRC or CRB on the status of my current proposal. So, until my current proposal to the FSRC & CRB has been reviewed and they’ve made their decision I’m not interested in writing and submitting a new proposal at this time.

When my current proposal to the CRB has been completed then I might submit my own technical proposal with the supporting data to the CRB for the 494/493 engines. I have made no final decisions yet!

Scott

---

The above proposal is a good proposal that allows for a simple way to optimize jetting however it will not improve the competive position of a properly jetted 2 stroke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

The above proposal is a good proposal that allows for a simple way to optimize jetting however it will not improve the competive position of a properly jetted 2 stroke.

---

Trolling!!! Trolling!!! Trolling!!! keep the F500 doggies rolling!

That's all you are Jay is an F500 Trolll that sits on Forums all day
long and doesn't have a LIFE! Go argue this nonsense with
someone else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

Trolling!!! Trolling!!! Trolling!!! keep the F500 doggies rolling!

That's all you are Jay is an F500 Trolll that sits on Forums all day
long and doesn't have a LIFE! Go argue this nonsense with
someone else!

---

You are wrong! I am not trolling. I specifically stated that your adjustable jet proposal was a good proposal but that it wouldn't increase power over an optimized standard jet carb. I do not think that is trolling. Of course you can think what you want. I hope that you come up with something that will equalize the 500cc 2 strokes with the 593 and the MC engines.

I know how much power they actually have because f500 cars that I have designed and built have won the Runoffs 3 times using the 494; the 593 and the 600cc MC engines and each one of those motors has been on the same engine Dyno!

Now THAT IS TROLLING!

I truly hope that you have something and can get it approved too!

Equalizing F500 engines is not my problem or responsibility! I have no solutions for equalizing any F500 Engines. IMO Engine equalizing and Engine parity in this F500 class is total engineering technical nonsense. You constantly want to defocus me & drag me into some totally nonsensical engine equalization discussion that has no basis in any rigorous SYSTEMS ENGINEERING methods. Go talk to someone who cares and wants to discuss engine equalization, I’m not interested and I don’t care!!!!

I’m trying to focus on making my race cars competitive based on the SCCA General Competition Rules for the F500 Class and submitting the rules changes I feel I need to accomplish that goal. If you have a problem with that, it’s your problem not mine.

Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

Equalizing F500 engines is not my problem or responsibility! I have no solutions for equalizing any F500 Engines. IMO Engine equalizing and Engine parity in this F500 class is total engineering technical nonsense. You constantly want to defocus me & drag me into some totally nonsensical engine equalization discussion that has no basis in any rigorous SYSTEMS ENGINEERING methods. Go talk to someone who cares and wants to discuss engine equalization, I’m not interested and I don’t care!!!!

I’m trying to focus on making my race cars competitive based on the SCCA General Competition Rules for the F500 Class and submitting the rules changes I feel I need to accomplish that goal. If you have a problem with that, it’s your problem not mine.

Scott

---

I have zero problems with your plan. I misunderstood your goals.

At this point if allowing this will bring out 1 person, it will help. The class is doomed!! Why its doomed is partially because of people who would rather argue than race!!
JAY NOVAK - You have contributed allot to our class!!!! BUT - the person who is debating you on this has 2 cars, and doesn't race!! Along with HIS MANY other past complaints, and telling everyone about his " CREDENTIALS " He could have a turbo and it wouldn't get him to mid pack!! Stop wasting your time with this - want be wanker!! What ever can be done to bring out more people to race would benefit everyone in the class!!
== AND AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE - THE TOP COMPETITORS WILL COMPETE AT THE TOP, THE MID PACK COMPETITORS WILL BE MID PACK, THE TAIL RUNNERS WILL BE THE TAIL RUNNERS!!!!!! DOESNT MATTER WHAT TYPE OF ENGINE PACKAGE, IT WILL BE THE SAME!! == BUT - THEY ARE COMPETING !!! WHERE ARE ALL THE OTHERS WHO CONSTANTLY RUN THEIR MOUTHS, COMPLAIN........ BUT ARE NEVER AT THE TRACK???? SPEND THE TIME WORKING ON YOUR EQUIPMENT, AND COME OUT AND COMPETE!!!
On the other hand lets be honest, the people who have continued to participate are all that have kept the class alive, example - Clint, Dan, Jim - they have done their best to bring in rentals, conversions , and selling cars, and talking to countless people at the track to encourage new people to race, and are always willing to help anyone!!!!
Jeremy Morales, and Myself - with team GERITOL -(:)) sorry Jack, Russell, Don, :checkered::checkered::checkered:, and others we have convinced to race , at least 3 new F600 customers at selected events this season!! Between Clints bunch and ours is the only reason we have Majors eligibility. I should also mention regular participants = Cal S, Dave L, Chuck M, James W, Eric M, Jay B, Cory M, Aaron E, Robert G. They competed, and made the Runoffs! This represents our regular participation.
Yes its sad, but change happens, and honestly after the learning curve of shifting, all of the people who are 2 stroke only would see that it is far less expensive in the long run!!! 2 stroke engines and parts cost for these engines are really getting out of hand, especially the 593. Not to mention clutches, clutch parts, belts etc ......
But to each his own, the constant performance complaint issue about 2 stroke vs 4 stroke only truly affected 2 people with 2 strokes who are (currently racing regularly) who were runoff competitors.
No offense to the others who competed at the runoffs with 2 strokes, but you were not top 5 place competitors with either power train with the contestants we had.
The 4 stroke engine for anyone who plans on sticking with the class is the way to go. Some don't want to hear it, but it is what it is!!

Quote:

---

#28359 “Proposed rule changes related to External Jetting Devices”


This proposal makes an argument for in cockpit adjustment of External Jetting Devices and against any high cost fully automated adjustment system that effects air/fuel ratio. I have heard no response back from the FSRC or CRB on the status of my current proposal. So, until my current proposal to the FSRC & CRB has been reviewed and they’ve made their decision I’m not interested in writing and submitting a new proposal at this time.


When my current proposal to the CRB has been completed then I might submit my own technical proposal with the supporting data to the CRB for the 494/493 engines. I have made no final decisions yet!


Scott

---

Scott,

Have you heard anything back from the SCCA/CRB about your proposal?

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard-6

Scott,

Have you heard anything back from the SCCA/CRB about your proposal?

Richard

---

I submitted letter #28359 "Proposed rule changes related to External Jetting Devices" on Jan 25th.
It has been reviewed by the FSRAC and forwarded to the CRB. Letter #28359 is currently on the
CRB agenda. The CRB meets on the first Tuesday of the month. The letter should be reviewed by
the CRB on April 7th and the results of their decision should be posted in Fastrack around April 20th.

Scott