Rotax Type 453. http://tinyurl.com/ykrqak
----- Original Message ---- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:16:48 AM Subject: Re: [F500] What?! Discontinuing the 493?! I recommend we cut the grousing and whining and turn to resolving the problem by introducing alternatives. I would like to note a start of some alternatives as I see them. I believe these alternatives should be given consideration based upon their compatibility with the currently legal engine packages as noted in the GCR (i.e., Rotax, AMW, Kawasaki, and Chapparal IN THIS ORDER). First, I would appeal to SCCA to form a PERMANENT group chartered to address issues of F500 components, their manufacture, their availability, and their applicability to the class. This engine need issue crops its ugly head up about every 5-8 years. It is here to stay so, why not treat it as such. 1. Put together a COMMITTED group purchase of Rotax 493 engines. As a show of commitment, I would suggest a 25% deposit sent to Tony Murphy immediately for each engine. 2. Solicit private engine builders to buy Rotax 493 engine components for subsequent assembly and use by SCCA F500. Some form of commitment (e.g., deposit) should also be considered. Stipulate that the cost of the engine must not exceed the original cost (excluding cost of money and exchange rate). 3. Begin a study to identify other suitable engine packages offered by Rotax. The study group should have SOME semblance of authority or at least recognition of/by SCCA. The group's objectives and constraints should be published (e.g., only consider engines that fit the engine bays of cars manufactured since 1997 or require a PTO taper currently in use, or use four mounting bosses). 4. If there is no solution that includes Bombardier, then legalize all engines in the 494 and 493 series and stipulate no parts interchangeability between configurations as originally defined by the manufacturer (current rules exceptions notwithstanding). These two series will provide the volume necessary to provide the class with an abundant volume of engines for at least five years. Five years provides the SCCA, the (proposed) commission, and the ad hoc groups (e.g., f500.org) sufficient time to begin research on the next engine package. 5. <Insert your proposed alternative here>. Notice, I did not address the issue of 2- or 4-cycle engines nor little else. I do not regard it as my place to recommend any more constraints than is necessary. That would be the job of the "F500 Ad Hoc Group." The SCCA has never expressed much direct interest in our class. However, those folks EXIST on entry fees. We vote with our wallets and may need to remind SCCA that F500 entry fees are the same as the entry fees of all the other classes. ALL classes are hurting right now. We must become a bit more innovative in our thinking if we are to survive as a class. Comments? Let's get busy. Dave Gill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Art" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:00 PM Subject: RE: [F500] What?! Discontinuing the 493?! > 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 _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! *** _____________________________________________________________________________ _______ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
