Can anyone tell me why they think a 593 shouldn't be restricted? To save some headaches, I will not reply to any ones post on this. I'm just wanting to hear some reasons.
Reason why the 593 shouldnt be restricted?
Can anyone tell me why they think a 593 shouldn't be restricted? To save some headaches, I will not reply to any ones post on this. I'm just wanting to hear some reasons.
It's a 2 stroke in what was originally a 2 stroke class. It already has a restrictor between the carb and the boot.Originally Posted by clint
Now we will never be racing a 2 stroke again and I would much rather see the restrictor in the 600cc MC engines increased in size. Remember that the Lap record at Road America and MANY other tracks are still held by 494 engines.
The CRB slightly over reacted when they cut the restrictor from 32mm to 30mm this was a nearly a 13% reduction in area.
If we get a 31mm restrictor that will make things pretty damn close IMO.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
As a newcomer to the road racing side of F500's... I don't have a reason why it shouldn't be restricted. From what I understand, the 494/493 is supposed to be the benchmark for the class. Theoretically, restrictors put it in line with those engines with a weight penalty so I'm fine with it.
Personally I believe the 593 and MC powered cars should be restricted even more to get inline with the 493/494.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote