Hi Chuck, Yes, you are absolutely right when you say 'Be careful of what you wish for....you may receive it!'
My comment earlier to you about the Solo programs response to the 493 is correct. You know that I was a major proponent of the 493 arguing constantly in favor of it and probably pissing people off because of it (see Ed, you're not alone ;-)). But I do not recall more then one or two soloists, who will remain anonymous :-), arguing against that engine. I do remember fencing with a lot of racers here though :-). The CRB screwed around for 3 years disregarding the 493 data and efforts of Don Clar and the year long trials in real race environments by QRE. The CRB were given all the particulars on the performance of the engine from Tony Murphy and the Austrian engineers that designed both Rotax engines. All that data said just the opposite of what the CRB eventually did. They had a very big hand in the lack of participation in this class over the last few years and history puts the truth to that. And now, they want to restructure the class (and they do), turn it upside down, throw all those nasty 2 cycles with that crazy CVT out. A lot of folks find that troubling. I think if we were to look to the future and try and secure the "next generation" F5 engine without this complete redesign of the class, there probably would be less resistance. No one, including me :-), wish to stop forward movement even though we could go for a decade with rebuilds and or completely remanufactured engines. And if remanufactured engines were a problem, why is anyone suggesting that a remanufactured MC engine is the way to go? Replace a CVT with a transmission? C'mon MC proponents, in 20 years we will all be driving around with CVTs. It is the most efficient way for power transmission and keeps the engine at song and in the power band, plus no shifting. It's a racer's dream come true. Even F1 wanted to go to a CVT. Do they know anything? :-) We are unique in the SCCA formula world. We go fast for peanuts. Don't understand the CVT? Hell, Mike would be glad to talk to anyone about how to tune them. He'll even give you his setup, I know he gives mine away to any soloist that asks :-). Help? Mike is always there to help. Ask any number of Runoff people who helped them out at that event in the past 10 years. Some would have not even turned a lap without his help, all given freely. So, all this talk about not understanding CVTs, not understanding 2 cycles, no one will help, is just so much baloney. All anyone has to do is ask. Mike is certainly not the only one willing to give answers. So bottom line, some of these excuses as to why we need a MC engine is just bogus. With shocks and a MC engine, we are looking at a SR without fenders and $35,000 to $40,000 for a car. How many can afford that? If they could, they'd go to Topeka :-). Sorry Chuck, .......I'll get down off the soap box now :-). Art -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McAbee Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [F500] F500/F600 Proposal The CRB listened to all the complaints that were leveled at the 493 and doesn't know, and doesn't care, who are SOLO and who are Racers. The bulk of the complaints that were leveled through this forum about 493 were from the SOLO contingent. The CRB took the SOLO complaints to heart with the 50 pound penalty, the MAC/SEB didn't; I don't know if that makes the MAC/SEB smarter than the CRB or not. When we voice complaints to rule making boards we don't control their rule making response to those complaints. The old adage, 'Be careful of what you wish for....you may receive it!' applies when communicating with both the CRB and the MAC/SEB as well as the BOD. When we decide upon something NEW, we can't penalize it to the point that no one wants to suffer the penalty to be able to use it. Progress means old things do become obsolete. I am certain there is someone still out there running a Chaparral engine wishing he could be competitive with that engine. I wish we still had 25 cent/gallon gas, but that is not today's world. Chuck McAbee SEDIV #16 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Art Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [F500] F500/F600 Proposal >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. Whoa Chuck, you've got that backwards! The CRB made the 493 run 50# heavier, the MAC/SEB didn't. Check the rule books. When the 493 was legalized, the MAC thought that was ridiculous and responed by keeping both the 494 AND the 493 at 800#. We separated ourselves from the GCR requirement to keep the balance tube in place also, and we don't require a thermostat to be in place either. Matter of fact Chuck, the CRB has been behind the Soloists in a number of areas where SCCA members wanted things addressed and changed. The CRB is responsible for helping the movement toward the 493, and with it maybe even the growth of this class, become stagnant with their policy toward that engine. They are, of course, not responsible for the production end of the 493, I'm not saying that. The general market did that to all 500cc snowmobile engines. But they certainly caused this class to falter by putting 50# more weight on that engine and making folks think twice about using it and buying new cars. So, if you are going to point a finger, don't point it at the Soloists. They tried to help the 493 survive in our world. Your facts need to be turned around 180 degrees. Art ________________________________ 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! ***
