Jim,
You got to be kidding! I can't believe the ridiculous statements in your
post.
This was purely a business decision by Bombardier, Tony had nothing to do
with it nor could he prevent it. As far as SCCA is concerned, they did
everything possible to prevent folks from upgrading to this engine by
moving
slowly to legalize it, adding weight when none was necessary, and moving
like a snail on handling other issues with this engine. All this lack of
and
slow movement caused the manufacturer of this engine to feel there was
absolutely no market in SCCA F5 or F Mod. Tony could do nothing to hide
this
fact.
How many engines were purchased by the F500 group, how much support was
given, since the engine was legalized? Very, very little. Do you really
expect a multinational, billion dollar corporation to be swayed to keep
their production line going for a handful of engines sold over the last
two
years?
As far as the promise of production goes, Rotax believed that they would
produce this engine until 2008 and maybe longer if the need was there. So
they were a year short in their projection. As Tony stated, the market for
500s went away and even we did not purchase the engines in projected
numbers
to keep the production line running profitably. And Jim, unless you've
forgotten, a company makes plans based upon making money. Rotax was sold a
few years ago and the new owners(Bombardier) cut back tremendously on
everything from personnel to non-profitable engines. They only focused on
engines that were in demand. Unfortunately, the 493 was not one of them.
You want to rectify this decision? To late Jim. We, as a group, had our
chance to buy engines but we didn't for various reasons. Maybe the 494 was
just too good :-).We didn't do much in the way of support. Tony made some
very generous offers over the last few years to help people buy those
engines and nobody responded. Instead of whining about Tony not doing this
or that, you should be glad that Tony was involved at all. Had he not
been,
you'd still be powered by that boat anchor you had in your car.
Instead of crying to Stan for help, which he can't give BTW, maybe you and
SCCA should be looking at why this happened in the first place and learn
for
the next time we try to get a engine legalized. We can do without all the
BS
that occurred concerning this engine in the last three years.
Bring Rotax, SCCA, and F500 drivers together to discuss this decision?
Won't
happen Jim. SCCA has ignored Tony in the past. The F500 driver's have not
responded by buying engines. And Rotax needs to make engines that people
want. There is no basis for compatibility here.
You want Rotax to confer with "....the F500 group BEFORE making their
decision." I find that laughable. Get real Jim.
Tony has asked Rotax to produce engines for us before the line is shut
down
for good. They agreed, although they certainly didn't have to do that.
Will
anyone respond by buying engines before they are gone? Probably not as
history tell us, but the jury is still out.
And Jim, Tony didn't just "....come out with this announcement". He is
giving the list a heads up on what is occurring in the marketplace. I
think
you owe Tony an apology by trying to imply some negative reason he posted
this information, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that and I don't
think Tony will either.
Art
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [F500] What?! Discontinuing the 493?!
Tony,
We finally get to the point after TWO years of work, where the minimum
weight is finally closer by 25 lbs, a good pipe is finally here, the
clutching for the 493 is about at its optimum and people are beginning to
look at a 493 for their car and you come out with this announcement. This
is MOST premature to say the very least in a very charitable way. Where
is
the promise that was made back at the beginning that this would be in
production for several more years??!! Did the Rotax executives only
listen
to you or did they do due diligence and talk with the F500 group BEFORE
making their decision. I think the answer is obvious. As word spreads
thru SCCA officials (who, I suspect, were not consulted either), Rotax's
name will become MUD, something I did NOT want to see happen. This
unilateral decision could hurt the F500 class within SCCA.
I implore you, Tony, to bring together the Rotax decision maker(s), the
SCCA officials and F500 drivers for a discussion on what can be done to
rectify this bad situation.
Stan, any help here?
Jim
