OK Chuck I'll bite....  Did you ask how many of those blown up wet sump motors 
had a $175 Accusump?  How many of those motors were 600's?  Did you ask around 
and see any 600 Micro's that had the same problem???
   
  CR

Chuck Voboril <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Dave,

Here goes... roughly in your order :->

I would not say that 4 strokes suck, but they are nothing special either.
I've gone and asked around to verify that I was correct in cautioning people 
on 4 strokes needing dry sumps.

You can add that expense and the dry sump's extra weight to Jay's 50# 
estimated overall extra weight for a 4 stroke

The Wests that CR mentioned still lose R1 motors. One lost 2 motors at one 
event.

In SCCA homologating a car only applies to the chassis. There is nothing to 
keep one from using a dry sump if the drawings submitted showed a wet sump 
motor. Not sure what the homologation routine is in IMSA.

Phoenix Race cars designed their new F1000 chassis to accept a wet or dry 
sump motor, but they say one would have to be a slow driver or penny-wise 
and dollar-foolish to run a wet sump R1.

Every race shop I have spoken with says any motor with oil that must be 
recycled from the crankcase instead of bring burned needs a dry sump if the 
car makes much more than about 1.2 G.
(FF1600 is at 1.6G). Not to say someone may get a really well designed 
baffled sump and accusumo to work-but I bet it won't work everywhere nor on 
all motors. Gven a long enough corner, all accusmps run out of oil.

Shifting is OK but nothing special either.

If gear ratios are to be stock-then I can see people doing engine swaps 
between different brand 4 strokes depending upon the track.
Probably should settle upon one brand and model 600cc motor.

Shocks are good to have to improve safety, also good to learn on for those 
with real pro class racing ambitions. Probably more important to understand 
than moving a gearshift lever.


IMHO below-not official view of MAC:
120 HP should be the driveable target HP for Vees.

There have to be some reminders on limitations on the 1600cc 10:1 setup 
with its non-stock valves and more carb choices so that it will not be 
clearly superior to the 1915cc 9:1 single carb, stock valve choice.

The present SV rules plainly do not allow any chamber work and this should 
not be changed IMHO. The larger 1915cc bore does not inherently unshrould 
the valves. The shrouding is from the deep chamber sides next to the 
valves, not the bore.


Chuck





>From: Dave Phaneuf 
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [F500] List still active?
>Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:50:48 -0400
>
>Chuck,
>Still alive, just nothing to bitch about at the moment. I'm sure you could
>start something, maybe like... 4 strokes suck, shifting sucks, shocks
>are a waste of money, and the new solo vee's will make 155HP!
>....... ducking till Monday.
>Dave Phaneuf


 
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
________________________________
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! ***

Reply via email to