[F500] 800 twin

[Jim Libecco]

The February Fastrack is out, no mention of f5, but then again we see things
about a month or two after it happens.  April issue at the earliest to
address the engine issue?

I really was kidding 'bout the 800, although it seems to have stirred some
serious reminiscing.  

Jim
(only 22 more hours of speedvision to watch!)

-----Original Message-----
From: f500-bounces at f500.org [mailto:f500-bounces at f500.org] On Behalf Of
McAbee, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 1:39 AM
To: 'f500 at f500.org'
Subject: RE: Re: [F500] 800 twin

Letting any 440/500 two stroke would make the class a rules enforcement
nightmare as to what was 'stock' and legal.  That nightmare is what Tony
Murphy is referring to in his reluctance to endorse the 494 RAVE.

The 494 will be entering it's 8th year as being the premier engine to have
in the class, would that it could go on forever but that is not the way of
the world.  The class started with the Fuji Chaparral engine back in 1979,
then in the early 80's the Kawasaki was legalized with restrictor plates,
with the restrictor plates being removed in the middle 80's.  The AMW was
legalized for the 1994 National season and because of it's poor reliability
the Rotax 494 was legalized for the 1997 National season.  Growth and change
are the way of the World, as much as we would like to stop the World....WE
CAN'T.  If the next legalized engine gets an 8 year run I'll be happy beyond
my wildest dreams as I never figured when I ran the first Rotax 494 in
National competition at Sebring in 1997 that I would be starting the 2004
season with the same engine, again at Sebring.  

While I was on the 494 RAVE band wagon, with the additional factual
information supplied by Tony Murphy I am going to have to change my
position.  Let's get on with the 493 as we have already wasted 2 years of
its production run with all this argument.


Chuck McAbee
SEDIV #16

-----Original Message-----
From: aschutte at fuse.net [mailto:aschutte at fuse.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 00:28
To: f500 at f500.org
Subject: Re: Re: [F500] 800 twin


> 
> From: "Jan Schmidt" <jschmidt at kumc.edu>
> Another interesting
> side note: Every major snowmobile manufacturer today makes a "440" class
> motor. I have no idea why, but it seems this is a standard size for the
> low end sleds. 
> Bill Schmidt 88 Red Devil (Kawa)

I've been following this whole engine thing and I'm starting to think we're
all going down the wrong path...

Why don't we just allow *any* 2-stroke between 440 and 500cc with a max.
inlet (carbs or FI as regulated) of, say, 34mm.  Then let the market decide
what engine works best, is most available and has the best parts support.
No matter what you do, there is a maximum that can be achieved with a given
flow passage.  Also note that I did NOT say "restrictor plate", rather just
establishing a maximum passage diameter.

This does not favor or discourage any manufacturer and should drop prices by
encouraging competition.  Comments?

BTW, Merry Christmas to all in the F5 group!

Allen
_______________________________________________
F500 mailing list - F500 at f500.org
To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
_______________________________________________
F500 mailing list - F500 at f500.org
To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***