Originally Posted by sathorp
data-based adjustments as necessary!!!
data-based adjustments as necessary!!!
Technically rigorous means Dyno data or actual race car acceleration data! The SCCA also uses car data, when the data system is installed and monetored by SCCA technical personal. This has been done many times by the Scca and the data has shown that the target acceleration times between the MC cars and the 593 powered cars is very very close! So the question is, why can't a 2 stroke win?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
The SCCA has made numerous "data based changes to 4 stroke restrictor sizes and weights for over 4 years. A 2 stroke won the Runoffs in 2014 and 2016 against the best 4 stroke cars in the country. So, what's the problem?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Way off the topic of your own thread!!!!
The topic of your thread is the Rotax 494 engine and F500 class participation!
Last edited by sathorp; 03.04.20 at 1:52 PM.
Go argue Rotax 593 vs 600cc Motorcycle engine parity with someone else!!!
I'm not interested and I don't care!
Participation!!!
Last edited by sathorp; 03.04.20 at 6:18 PM.
Solution?
Separate classes imo!
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
That just makes the numbers lower in two smaller classes!
But it might increase 2 stroke participation!
What is your solution?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
There is no cut a dry solution:
- You can accept the current GCR rules and go race.
- You can write letters to the CRB to change the rules.
- You cannot race, sit back, and see what happens next.
- You can go race somewhere else (Autocross, Hillclimb, Regional, FRCCA, Vintage, etc.)
- You can do any combination of the above.
Everyone is free to choose their own options, and no one has control of other peoples choices!
This class voted the first time and the Majority was overruled.
An Ad Hoc was formed and a Class Survey was taken and the
Majority was overruled again.
IMO the class is now taking a third vote and members are now voting
with their feet and their pocket book.
Last edited by sathorp; 03.04.20 at 5:57 PM.
The mistaken assumption, in my opinion, is that we are dealing with the same number of participants being divided into separate classes. The reality is that more people participate when they feel they have an opportunity to race against somebody else on substantially equal footing, not subject to infighting, and not subject to goalposts being arbitrarily moved.
If the thinking is that keeping the "classes" combined helps participation, why not combine all the open wheel classes---that would certainly increase participation if that's the goal
As they should. Whenever the majority is overruled time and time again, what's to be expected?
Do you have these survey results? If so please post them here.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
They were posted and delivered to everyone that took the F500 Ad Hoc Committee Survey.
I'm not posting them here and arguing Ad Hoc Committee Conclusions from 2017!
Go find your copy!
Last edited by sathorp; 03.04.20 at 9:16 PM.
Jay, You've already submitted letters to the CRB to split the class into
a 2-Stroke and 4-Stroke class at least twice. I could go dig it out of
Fastrack, it's been rejected and not recomended both times.
The only people who have any authority to do anything is the CRB.
I
The CRB MAKES ALL THE DECISIONS!
Last edited by Jnovak; 03.12.20 at 2:12 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I'm a little surprised with the pushback on this idea from the 494 community. Why so little interest in making more power with an engine package that is perceived as not being super competitive compared with the 593 and MC engines for under $1500? This lack of interest bolsters my opinion that no matter what you do to make whatever engine more competitive or even splitting the class, it will result in a near net zero increase in participation. The guys who actually want to race and have funds are already racing. The guys with other priorities have found different things to do with their money and spare time.
-Eric
I'm a little surprised with the pushback on this idea from the 494 community. Why so little interest in making more power with an engine package that is perceived as not being super competitive compared with the 593 and MC engines for under $1500?
-Eric
Just install a Rotax 583! Same results at less cost!
This 494-conversion kit makes absolutely no sense to me!
Just my two cents.
Scott is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in his statement! Someone needs to take over this task and it should be a current competitor in the class. As I am no longer active in the class I am not the right choice. I will assist a bit as I have Brad's Dyno data. If someone wants to accept this task I will assist!
jaynovak@comcast.net or 313-445-4047
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
We should just go back to what the MC guys wanted. Thirteen inch wheels, real shocks and springs, and adjustable anti-sway bars and then blend them into the FF class.I'm a little surprised with the pushback on this idea from the 494 community. Why so little interest in making more power with an engine package that is perceived as not being super competitive compared with the 593 and MC engines for under $1500? This lack of interest bolsters my opinion that no matter what you do to make whatever engine more competitive or even splitting the class, it will result in a near net zero increase in participation. The guys who actually want to race and have funds are already racing. The guys with other priorities have found different things to do with their money and spare time.
-Eric
Then the F500 class can go back to it's roots, low cost, big fun racing. With 2 cycle engines only. They are easy to repair and parts are low cost.
Richard
Runoffs winners
2014-two-stroke
2015-four stroke
2016-two-stroke
2017-four-stroke
2018-two-stroke
2019-four-stroke
Restrictor and /or weight changes for a two-stroke
2014-0
2015-0
2016-0
2017-0
2018-0
2019-0
2020-0
Restrictor and /or weight changes for a four-stroke
2014-2 (32mm,30mm)
2015-1 (31mm)
2016-1 (30mm)
2017-1 (29mm)
2018-0
2019- +25lbs
2020-1 (28mm)
Thanks Clint
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
In order to use the word "we" , YOU would first need a car. Contribute to the class by way of participating or stop complaining. For example: Chuck complains ,but he has the right to do so since he contributes to the numbers. Try being like Chuck and not so much like yourself.
.
Last edited by clint; 03.12.20 at 7:01 PM.
I'm just an autocrosser for now (very young kids keep my time and money close to home), but I have a 494 in a chassis that is still logbooked and a a weekends work from roadracing and I support these efforts. I get that the pointy end guys are very picky about allowing different packages as then they have more things to test to determine optimal.
The pond (class participation) is shrinking. We NEED numbers to keep it going. I dont think 2 stroke vs MC is the primary determent right now. Having a way that older engines can stay anywhere in the fight is GOOD, and as an owner of one, I'm OK if its not challenging for national win, just not trailing the field (drivers being equal, which is rare)
To me, one of the primary barriers to roadracing these cars IS actually the small field size (who wants to run alone against FF or FV?). I think if we more proactively network for the class we can work on it and see improvement. Small races count. Who's running where this weekend? Is there someone else in an area that might show if they know x number of cars will be running that event? Does a newbie need a mentor while getting used to the class? Any of the guys willing to do some youtube videos about their car and racing them that gives a feel for regular maintenance and tuning?
Obvious question is where to host that kind of effort?
to the guys complaining about engine parity, I plead the following: If we cant adopt a "the more the merrier" attitude, we wont have a class for long. The MC engine has been here for a good number of years now. a takeback would be mortally damaging to the class at this point. The horse escaped the barn a long time ago.
It's with a heavy heart that I say this but if there is a future for our class it is with the 4-stroke engines. I've purposely not posted much in a while because forum arguments hurt the class, but here is what I think we need to do for the future of the class.
1. Stop arguing about the past. Stop arguing 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke. Stop suggesting that we break the class into two. That scares away new blood.
2. Stop posting crazy ideas (like the topic of this tread and the 8300 rpm limit for 593s) that will never happen. That scares away new blood, including those considering joining to race a 2-stroke car. Eric is correct - there is no pool of 2-stroke drivers waiting to "come back" and win the Runoffs. There is still a place in the class for 2-strokes but the potential numbers are small and the SCCA will never make them competitive with the top 4-strokes. It's time to move on!
3. We need to spend our collective time and energy trying to grow the class with NEW competitors, and that means 4-strokes. In addition to my car, Mitchell Racing is currently refurbishing/resurrecting three other 4-stroke cars and converting another from 2-stroke.
4. We still have the problem of being a budget class where new cars cost $32-35k, so let's also focus on getting that cost down. I know of a long-time class competitor who currently wants a new 4-stroke car but won't pull the trigger on $32k.
5. If you care about the class and can swing it financially, RUN YOUR CAR. Pick the closest Majors and go run. We need participation.
Flame away.
Cory
Last edited by cory mcleod; 03.12.20 at 10:54 AM.
Clint,
You liked your post so much that you did it twice. !
By using the word "we", I am referring to the F500 community, not just one specific person. You knew that yet you had to make a point of what?
Richard
You should write a letter to the CRB!
I know that they are tired of hearing from me!
Unless something is done or a miracle happens F500 will be gone from majors competition next January 1st,
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Thanks Cory for a great posting!
Imo new F500 cars do cost too much right now. I am trying to reduce build costs!
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Let me try a different more simplified approach. If you have something you want changed in the class then write a letter to the CRB. The letter also carries more weight when you actually own a car in the class and you're contributing to the class numbers, just FYI.
If you would like to be a part of the group ("we") , then buy a car and contribute to the class numbers.
I'm up for anything that will get numbers up. I usually don't do this ,but I will say that I personally have asked for restrictor adjustments and weight changes in hopes that the drivers who think they're not competitive due to weight to power reasons would come back out. My requests were based off of actual data to support my letters. This hasn't worked as you can see by the information posted above.
I've stated time and time again that if you want a motor change ( newer options such as fuel injection, different motor, etc) I would personally write in and support it if you have the proper data to support the change.However, I've not seen anything from that end of things except a bunch no action talk only (NATO). If you want things to change write the letters.
Chuck,Russell, Jack, Cory and myself are the majority of the people who write in. Stop coming up with why you can't, start coming up with why you can and make it happen. Hundreds of people said the MC motor would never be able to work in a F500 due to numerous reasons ( too big to fit, too much power resulting in cracked frames all of the time, motors wouldn't last, overheating issues,etc) yet WE ignored the ignorance and kept moving forward towards the goal. WE used our own money to develop this package and made it successful.
Now it's time for everyone who wants a change to do the same. Stop complaining, start doing and make it happen.
Last edited by clint; 06.09.20 at 7:35 PM.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote