A new engine presents the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand we don't want to make totally uncompetitive the existing dominate legal engines. On the other hand, if the 'New' engine is not 'better' than the existing lumps what is the reason for buying one presuming parts are still available to keep the existing lumps running. This is the situation that effectively caused the demise of the Rotax 493 for our class. The 493 was not sufficiently, if any, better than the 494, as a consequence no market ever developed for the 493 sufficient to keep it in production.
The progression of engines in the class has been for each 'New' engine to be better than the one that it replaced. The Kawasaki was better than the Fuji Chaparral that it succeeded; the AMW was stronger (and more unreliable) than the Kawasaki and fostered the adoption of the Rotax 494 for relatively equivalent power with significantly better reliability. The legalization of the 493 and the 50 pound weight penalty made the engine less competitive than what it was intended to replace and the market spoke and we have no new 493's to purchase. Progress always has a price. The primary price, the way it always is in the racing environment, if you MUST BE COMPETING FOR THE WIN, you are going to have to have the best of the available engine/drive train packages in order to compete for the win. It is unreasonable for any of us to think that just because an engine/drive train package is legal that it has an equal opportunity for victory as any of the other legal engine/drive train packages. At this time, I have yet to form a firm opinion on the 600cc 4-stroke bike motor vs. the 500cc 2-stroke snowmobile motor debate. BUT - what ever package is selected, it must perform better than our existing packages, otherwise there is no commercial viability for anyone, either engine builders or chassis manufacturers to do the necessary design and development work to make the new package a reality. SOLO Competitors - While we, Racers & SOLO, are using the same basic chassis and engine packages as our starting points, the rules that apply to each form of the sport are different and are written by different boards within SCCA for different competition constituencies. My observation of the 493 debacle, holds the vocal SOLO participants responsible for the 50 pound weight penalty that was applied to the engine in RACING and effectively killed it as a commercially viable endeavor. The F500 side of the 'family' is fighting for it's very survival and does not need the F MOD side of the 'family' shooting it in the privates by addressing their concerns to the Racing Competition Board. SOLO participants please address your concerns to the SOLO board that makes the rules that apply to the SOLO competitions. Chuck McAbee SEDIV #16 ----------------------------------------- This email transmission and any accompanying attachments may contain CSX privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the intended addressee. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in reliance on the contents of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please immediately delete it and notify sender at the above CSX email address. Sender and CSX accept no liability for any damage caused directly or indirectly by receipt of this email. ________________________________ 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! ***
