When did F500 get so fast?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

Starting with a used car, I'm pretty certain I could purchase/build a run-offs capable winning FV for no more than $25K. I am also confident I could spend less than $15K and have a car capable of finishing somewhere in the top 2/3's of the field.

No idea what that same level of relative capabilities would cost in a F5? 30K/15K?

As to competitive hours in a FV, given your karting experience, the comparison I would make is to that of a PP or Reed valve motor; you aren't showing up to a big race without a fresh top end and crisp reeds. Same thing with a FV and the heads. Bottom ends can go quite a bit longer.

F5 motors that are MC based, probably don't even bother being rebuilt. More expensive parts & labor than sourcing another engine. Especially as newer model engines are likely to make marginally more HP than the model year you're replacing. In other words run it until it blows or no longer competitive.

---

Thanks Daryl, great info and pretty consistent with what I wondered. Especially the part about Vee and heads.

I imagine that Vees May hold a little more value on resale, given its class longevity and health. A might early in thinking about resale but a factor in what we do, if we do.

It may work out that an arrive-and-drive may be a better fit, in which case SRF3 is also to be considered. But we get those fees add up quick... and whatever we do, we want to run our own car if a few paid sessions confirm “we’re in.”

Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmberg

FV: 60 HP, 70 ft-lbs, 1025 lbs with driver. Engine costs $1700 to rebuild, is competitive for 53 hours on track.

FST: 85 HP, 100 ft-lbs, 1125 lbs with driver. Engine costs $1700 to rebuild, is competitive for 53 hours on track.

F600: 107 HP, 48 ft-lbs, 900 lbs with driver. Engine costs $2000 to rebuild/replace, is competitive for 60 hours on track.

Other costs and durations, such as tires, fuel, brake pads, and gearbox are in the spreadsheet.


Greg

---

Thanks for that and all the work you put into it!

When you list “competitive engine hours,” do you mean in Majors? I was under the impression by a few Vee guys I’ve talked to that they needed rebuilds after maybe 20-30 hours, am I way off?

It does make sense to me that a WC bike motor can run quite a bit longer than a Vee, competitively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

When you list “competitive engine hours,” do you mean in Majors? I was under the impression by a few Vee guys I’ve talked to that they needed rebuilds after maybe 20-30 hours, am I way off?

---

Yes, Majors/Runoffs level competition was the scenario I asked about. Specifically, I asked:

Quote:

---

This data represents the cost to run a nationally competitive effort (win a Majors race or be in the top 5 at the SCCA Runoffs). Not a cost-is-no-object car, but a very good car. In some classes this is usual (FE2 for example), while in others less common (SM). In many classes you can buy and operate a car mid-pack at Regional races for significantly less than the numbers here.

A session is defined as 25 minutes on track.

A weekend is defined as eight sessions: three practice sessions on Friday; practice, qualifying, and race on Saturday; and qualifying and race on Sunday; for a total of 3:20 time on track.

A full season is defined as eight weekends; for a total of 26:40 time on track in a year.

Operational cost is the cost of tires + engine + gearbox + fuel + brake pads + chain. These are only the major, predictable costs to operate the car during the event. There will be other smaller operational costs (changing engine oil, brake fluid, etc.), plus longer-term maintenance costs as items wear out, plus unpredictable costs due to damage, plus other weekend costs such as event entry fees, towing to the track, hotel, food, and so on. Total cost of racing, including depreciation of the car’s value, over a long term (a number of years) divided by number of weekends raced, will be significantly higher than this per-weekend operational cost. The numbers above are intended to be useful in comparing classes, and should not be construed as the total costs of a weekend of racing.

Engine and gearbox scenario: you have a pro-built nationally competitive engine and gearbox (cost was part of the purchase price listed). It produces this power for some amount of time, and then starts to fall off, and at some point is no longer competitive. You take that engine back to the pro builder, who does whatever is necessary for that particular engine (some classes more, some less) to make it competitive again. How much does that cost and for how hours on track will it be competitive?

---

The discussion from the FV community is here. That number 53 hours is iffy, as I didn't get much info from the community (and I'm not an FV owner myself). If you have better data, let me know.


Greg

Appreciate it, Greg. :thumbsup:

I stopped counting about 10 years ago because i did not like the numbers i kept getting !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmberg

This data represents the cost to run a nationally competitive effort (win a Majors race or be in the top 5 at the SCCA Runoffs). Not a cost-is-no-object car, but a very good car. In some classes this is usual (FE2 for example), while in others less common (SM). In many classes you can buy and operate a car mid-pack at Regional races for significantly less than the numbers here.

---

Greg:

IMO under the current GCR Engine & Weight Restrictions for a Rotax 494/493 (500cc 2-Stroke) powered car it’s almost impossible to meet this cost criteria in the F500 class. In a Cost-is-not-an-Object scenario it may be possible. Changes to the GCR Engine and/or Weight Restrictions for Rotax 494/493 (500cc 2-Stroke) powered car are required to be able to meet the criteria. Winning a Majors race is dependent on number of F500 entries & type of F500 cars entered.

Mike Mueller’s Runoff’s Winning Cars were Cost-is-not-an-Object cars

Runoffs Highest Finishing Rotax 494 Cars

2017 – 4^th Mike Muller
2018 – Only 5 Entries, Winning Car DQ’ed,
2019 – 8^th Jay Beckley
2020 – 6^th Steve Jondal

Scott

Imo there is no chançe for a 493 or a 494 to be competitive against either the 593 enginè or the 600.cc mc engines!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

My current racing plans for 2021 are to only race at SCCA Regional Events and spend absolutely none of my money at any SCCA Major Event or attend Runoffs that would contribute to the F500 participation rate. I will also not be resubmitted my proposal to the CRB (that I spent 8 months working on last year) which if approved would change the restrictions on the Rotax 494 powered cars to try to improve the participation rate in the F500 class.

---

After further thought and discussion offline. I think I’ll leave all my option open.
I’ll wait and see what decisions SCCA makes this year WRT the F500 class.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

IMO under the current GCR Engine & Weight Restrictions for a Rotax 494/493 (500cc 2-Stroke) powered car it’s almost impossible to meet this cost criteria in the F500 class.

---

OK, I just report what the various communities tell me for their class. I'm not a member of the F5 community. I've never owned or driven an F5.

Why don't you take it up with the F5 community and get back to me with a set of numbers, and I'll put them in the spreadsheet.

Greg

I dunno, seems like they're getting too fast. Maybe change to requiring a Smart Four2 engine & trans that puts out 89 hp?

(I'm kidding of course, but an engine like that would be great for an H-Mod resurrection, that and Kei-car installations. Should be fairly affordable, what?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmberg

OK, I just report what the various communities tell me for their class. I'm not a member of the F5 community. I've never owned or driven an F5.

Why don't you take it up with the F5 community and get back to me with a set of numbers, and I'll put them in the spreadsheet.

Greg

---

Clearly you don't understand what I'm saying. Lets try it a different way. The car with the current engine on your Spreadsheet can't be built without changing the rules! No set of numbers exists for an F500 car with that engine that fits your Spreadsheet unless SCCA changes the rules.

Jay Novak said

Imo there is no chançe for a 493 or a 494 to be competitive against either the 593 enginè or the 600.cc mc engines!



I will tell you how to fix that. Make the 593 cars run at 900 lbs, make the 600 cars run with a restrictor one size smaller, and make the 493 and 494 cars run at 800 lbs. Fixed, done deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Schmidt

Jay Novak said

Imo there is no chançe for a 493 or a 494 to be competitive against either the 593 enginè or the 600.cc mc engines!



I will tell you how to fix that. Make the 593 cars run at 900 lbs, make the 600 cars run with a restrictor one size smaller, and make the 493 and 494 cars run at 800 lbs. Fixed, done deal.

---

I'm for this but there's currently no 494 car/driver combination in the class that's capable of winning if the rules were to be changed

My last 494/493 proposal (that may need tweeked) makes no changes to the current Rotax 593 or 600cc MC engine & weight restrictions. I'm trying to make these changes without putting the 600cc MC engine through yet another restrictor plate change.

1) Allow the 502 159-Degree Rotary Valve in all 494 Engines

2) Allow 40mm Carbs in the 494/493 Engines (was not in my first proposal)

3) Reduce Minimum Weight to 775lbs. in the 494/493 Powered Cars

This proposal makes no changes to any Rotax 593 or 600cc MC cars at the front of the pack!!!

If there’s no Rotax 494/493 car/driver combination that can win if these changes are made then
what’s the problem???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clint

I'm for this but there's currently no 494 car/driver combination in the class that's capable of winning if the rules were to be changed

---

The only thing I see wrong with this is when you increase the weight on the 593s and we will have the braking problems the mc cars have. I would like to help the mc cars out with weight but then you are going to get the top end and acceleration changes that go with it we just got the 593s and the 593 close for the first time in four years. If we do anything maybe. bring weight down on mc cars to 850 and smaller restrictor. Then put a 36 carb on the 593s. We can not keep adding weight to these cars. If someone could give us data on the 494 motor with the 40 carbs and the other rotary valve. Then maybe that would be the way to go but getting these cars down to 750 would also not be wise for safety reasons. If the 494s could do this then also make a pipe rule on those cars so we do not go into pipe wars like we had for awhile in this class. you could probably go with a 44 carb on the 494s. They do not make 40s anymore. Or they are hard to find. Not quite sure about 40s. Rotary valve motors like big carbs. there may be other options on the rotary valve that may help that motor more with the bigger 44 carbs. Another question would be do you want to go with the rave valve or non rave 494s. there are alot more non rave cylinder motors that were made then the rave motors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark 21

The only thing I see wrong with this is when you increase the weight on the 593s and we will have the braking problems the mc cars have. I would like to help the mc cars out with weight but then you are going to get the top end and acceleration changes that go with it we just got the 593s and the 593 close for the first time in four years. If we do anything maybe. bring weight down on mc cars to 850 and smaller restrictor. Then put a 36 carb on the 593s. We can not keep adding weight to these cars. If someone could give us data on the 494 motor with the 40 carbs and the other rotary valve. Then maybe that would be the way to go but getting these cars down to 750 would also not be wise for safety reasons. If the 494s could do this then also make a pipe rule on those cars so we do not go into pipe wars like we had for awhile in this class. you could probably go with a 44 carb on the 494s. They do not make 40s anymore. Or they are hard to find. Not quite sure about 40s. Rotary valve motors like big carbs. there may be other options on the rotary valve that may help that motor more with the bigger 44 carbs. Another question would be do you want to go with the rave valve or non rave 494s. there are alot more non rave cylinder motors that were made then the rave motors.

---

Please see my PM!!!

F500 is a Restricted Class, it's not a Spec Class. The class restrictions need to be open enough to allow racers to build cars that are competitive within that set of class restrictions. If racers cannot build cars that are competitive within the class restrictions then the restrictions need to be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark 21

The only thing I see wrong with this is when you increase the weight on the 593s and we will have the braking problems the mc cars have. I would like to help the mc cars out with weight but then you are going to get the top end and acceleration changes that go with it we just got the 593s and the 593 close for the first time in four years. If we do anything maybe. bring weight down on mc cars to 850 and smaller restrictor. Then put a 36 carb on the 593s. We can not keep adding weight to these cars. If someone could give us data on the 494 motor with the 40 carbs and the other rotary valve. Then maybe that would be the way to go but getting these cars down to 750 would also not be wise for safety reasons. If the 494s could do this then also make a pipe rule on those cars so we do not go into pipe wars like we had for awhile in this class. you could probably go with a 44 carb on the 494s. They do not make 40s anymore. Or they are hard to find. Not quite sure about 40s. Rotary valve motors like big carbs. there may be other options on the rotary valve that may help that motor more with the bigger 44 carbs. Another question would be do you want to go with the rave valve or non rave 494s. there are alot more non rave cylinder motors that were made then the rave motors.

---

I said 775lbs minimum weight not 750lbs. You may not need the weight reduction if you can get enough power increase from the 159 Degree Rotary Valve & the bigger Carbs. You still need to add AERO they're no way around that!

9oI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark 21

The only thing I see wrong with this is when you increase the weight on the 593s and we will have the braking problems the mc cars have. I would like to help the mc cars out with weight but then you are going to get the top end and acceleration changes that go with it we just got the 593s and the 593 close for the first time in four years. If we do anything maybe. bring weight down on mc cars to 850 and smaller restrictor. Then put a 36 carb on the 593s. We can not keep adding weight to these cars. If someone could give us data on the 494 motor with the 40 carbs and the other rotary valve. Then maybe that would be the way to go but getting these cars down to 750 would also not be wise for safety reasons. If the 494s could do this then also make a pipe rule on those cars so we do not go into pipe wars like we had for awhile in this class. you could probably go with a 44 carb on the 494s. They do not make 40s anymore. Or they are hard to find. Not quite sure about 40s. Rotary valve motors like big carbs. there may be other options on the rotary valve that may help that motor more with the bigger 44 carbs. Another question would be do you want to go with the rave valve or non rave 494s. there are alot more non rave cylinder motors that were made then the rave motors.

---

I have seen lots of potentially interesting ideas recently posted but nothing at all about the very difficult problem of optimizing all of the variables required to get a 2 stroke powered 500cc cars to the front, with the current class structure! I do know how much work this takes since f500 cars i have prepared and built have won the runoffs 3 times, 1 time with a 494, 1 time with a 593 and 1 time with a 600 Suzuki 4 stroke.

I have some ideas but i doubt that anyone wants to hear them, but here I go.

Split the current single class into 2 separate classes f500 for 2 strokes engines only with minor adjustments to weights and restrictors etc to make each engine competitive, thats class 1 which is for 2 stroke cars ONLY

Class 2 would be for 600cc bone stock motorcycle POWERED cars ONLY with 30 mm restrictors at 875 lbs. Both classes WOULD race together and get seperate CLASS finishing positìons and points. Just 2 trophys for each class to keep costs down.

Same deal for the runoffs.


Lets form an ad hoc committee and make something good happen! Any Thoughts PLEASE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark 21

The only thing I see wrong with this is when you increase the weight on the 593s and we will have the braking problems the mc cars have. I would like to help the mc cars out with weight but then you are going to get the top end and acceleration changes that go with it we just got the 593s and the 593 close for the first time in four years. If we do anything maybe. bring weight down on mc cars to 850 and smaller restrictor. Then put a 36 carb on the 593s. We can not keep adding weight to these cars. If someone could give us data on the 494 motor with the 40 carbs and the other rotary valve. Then maybe that would be the way to go but getting these cars down to 750 would also not be wise for safety reasons. If the 494s could do this then also make a pipe rule on those cars so we do not go into pipe wars like we had for awhile in this class. you could probably go with a 44 carb on the 494s. They do not make 40s anymore. Or they are hard to find. Not quite sure about 40s. Rotary valve motors like big carbs. there may be other options on the rotary valve that may help that motor more with the bigger 44 carbs. Another question would be do you want to go with the rave valve or non rave 494s. there are alot more non rave cylinder motors that were made then the rave motors.

---

No 494/493 car/driver can possibly win that's been argued for the last six years so why do we now need a pipe rule. Pipes are open and have been for the 593 powered cars for the last six years. I do not support a pipe rule!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

9oI

I have seen lots of potentially interesting ideas recently posted but nothing at all about the very difficult problem of optimizing all of the variables required to get a 2 stroke powered 500cc cars to the front, with the current class structure! I do know how much work this takes since f500 cars i have prepared and built have won the runoffs 3 times, 1 time with a 494, 1 time with a 593 and 1 time with a 600 Suzuki 4 stroke.

I have some ideas but i doubt that anyone wants to hear them, but here I go.

Split the current single class into 2 separate classes f500 for 2 strokes engines only with minor adjustments to weights and restrictors etc to make each engine competitive, thats class 1 which is for 2 stroke cars ONLY

Class 2 would be for 600cc bone stock motorcycle POWERED cars ONLY with 30 mm restrictors at 875 lbs. Both classes WOULD race together and get seperate CLASS finishing positìons and points. Just 2 trophys for each class to keep costs down.

Same deal for the runoffs.


Lets form an ad hoc committee and make something good happen! Any Thoughts PLEASE!

---

Reality is SCCA has rejected all of these proposals MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

...
Lets form an ad hoc committee and make something good happen! Any Thoughts PLEASE!

---

As I recall the last Ad Hoc committee that was formed was disbanded by SCCA shortly after formation as they were not following SCCA's 'Stevie Wonder & Ray Charles' vision of the class.

IMO getting any performance adjustment approved is difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

Clearly you don't understand what I'm saying. Lets try it a different way. The car with the current engine on your Spreadsheet can't be built without changing the rules! No set of numbers exists for an F500 car with that engine that fits your Spreadsheet unless SCCA changes the rules.

---

Yes, I understand that you think that that row in the spreadsheet for the 494 engine is not valid.

What I'm telling you is: if you want to fix that data, it's up to you to lead a community discussion to get a better set of numbers for the 593 engine. Take some initiative, do the work. I'm out.


Greg

Maybe adopt the old NAMRA Formula Indy rules? Hehe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5X2cnaUDTc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

No 494/493 car/driver can possibly win that's been argued for the last six years so why do we now need a pipe rule. Pipes are open and have been for the 593 powered cars for the last six years. I do not support a pipe rule!

---

This is what was said for the last six years about a two stroke period. I'm pretty sure that can no longer be argued. BTW, a 494 still holds the track record at road America after a week of the Runoffs being there. Present data ,not opinions and people will listen. Keep presenting what's currently up for discussion and the only thing that will happen is people like myself will pull up a key board with some coke and popcorn. There's currently nothing else better to do.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clint

This is what was said for the last six years about a two stroke period. I'm pretty sure that can no longer be argued. BTW, a 494 still holds the track record at road America after a week of the Runoffs being there. Present data ,not opinions and people will listen. Keep presenting what's currently up for discussion and the only thing that will happen is people like myself will pull up a key board with some coke and popcorn. There's currently nothing else better to do.........

---

Thanks, Clint for your cordial response. I meet you at Mid-Ohio in 2015 you were also very cordial to me then and answered all my questions. I’m not trying to question anyone’s driving skill, only trying to make some rule changes with the lowest impact on other people’s cars that may improve participation.

Scott

I’ve already taken the initiative and spent 8 months trying to get performance adjustments approved when I couldn’t race last year. I have to much work to do now and I’m not taking on anymore. Some 593-car owner will have to take on the initiative and do the work required to update the Cost Spreadsheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clint

... a 494 still holds the track record at road America after a week of the Runoffs being there.

---

Thanks for interjecting fact.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

Thanks for interjecting fact.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

---

Not sure what your point is....

The question still remains, ARE there enough cars to split the class? People keep bringing it up but from what ive seen it seems like there isn't without risking the classes collapsing.

So at the risk of having the villagers come after me with pitch forks and torches:

There is nothing wrong with F500 as it currently is. It had the 3rd highest number of entries behind FV & FE. A two stroke car damn near won the RunOffs so they can be competitive. On top of that there was some very good racing throughout the field.

Of the 16 cars 10 were running Suzuki motors and 6 ran Rotax motors that's really not enough of either to justify separating the group.

F500 IS a really great class. The time spent debating how to equalize all the various packages, to me, is counter productive.

What I'd love to see is people list the number of hours they spend on prepping their cars and themselves. I suspect it would be very revealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helghast7

The question still remains, ARE there enough cars to split the class? People keep bringing it up but from what ive seen it seems like there isn't without risking the classes collapsing.

---

The class cannot be split and remain a National Level class. Any proposal to split the class has been rejected by SCCA multiple times over the last four years. If your sitting around waiting for the class to split at a National Level that's not going to happen IMO!!!

How did they manage to split SRF and SRF3? Enough cars to do both, I guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sathorp

Reality is SCCA has rejected all of these proposals MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

---

I agree that the CRB is unIikly to approve changes but you never know till you try!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bardahl77

How did they manage to split SRF and SRF3? Enough cars to do both, I guess?

---

They didn't split the classes so much as they introduced an upgrade package if you will. The Gen.3 is the SRF3 car. Competitors had to upgrade their cars from Gen2 spec (SRF) into Gen3 spec (SRF3) to race majors. Those folks with Gen 2 cars who didn't want to upgrade had to race Regionals in their SRF.

(1) there were a ****-ton of cars.

(2) SCCA Enterprises has a vested interest in the success of SRF3. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

I agree that the CRB is unIikly to approve changes but you never know till you try!

---

Constantly bringing this splitting the class up and or an Ad Hoc Committee effects participation IMO!!! People sit back and don't participate because they think the class is going to split and they're going wait to see what happens. It causes indecision!!! But you no longer race in this class or own a car so you probably don't understand the effect it may have on participation. You've been told by me and others to stop bringing this up. Go buy a car and go race!!!

I'll speak for myself personally, I've done exactly what I'm talking about!! I've not participated in the past because I'm waiting see what decision is going be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

They didn't split the classes so much as they introduced an upgrade package if you will. The Gen.3 is the SRF3 car. Competitors had to upgrade their cars from Gen2 spec (SRF) into Gen3 spec (SRF3) to race majors. Those folks with Gen 2 cars who didn't want to upgrade had to race Regionals in their SRF.

(1) there were a ****-ton of cars.

(2) SCCA Enterprises has a vested interest in the success of SRF3. ;)

---

And if we recall - when they introduced the F to SR, after the end date SR's were not permitted to race in SCCA at all.

Enterprises calls all the tunes in SR SRF SRF3 as well as FE and FE2. They spec the rules and you pay the price to upgrade to the new rules or park the car.