Hulings Rotax 593 Engine Durability and Life

[sathorp]

Jay, the 2-Stroke F500 Car that you continuously claim will dominate F500 and beat any 600cc MC car if it races this year would be equipped with your Hulings Rotax 593 Engine. This is the Hulings Rotax 593 Engine, you claim makes 115Hp, is Over Revved to probably 8800 Rpm, cost $6000.00, last maybe one race weekend (if your lucky), or breaks crankshafts. IMO the Hulings Rotax 593 Engine is not and never has been a viable F500 2-Stroke race engine that has the required durability and life for a low budget F500 class!

[E1pix]

Wow, "nice" Christmas gift to someone undeserving of such a "gift."

Happy Holidays.

[sathorp]

Wow, "nice" Christmas gift to someone undeserving of such a "gift."Happy Holidays.

Go read Jay’s posts that where made on the SCCA F500 & FModified Facebook page at 12:30am on Christmas Morning. If it’s posted over there no one in the rest of SCCA ever sees it or reads it.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/360619197459057

[Jnovak]

Jay, the 2-Stroke F500 Car that you continuously claim will dominate F500 and beat any 600cc MC car if it races this year would be equipped with your Hulings Rotax 593 Engine. This is the Hulings Rotax 593 Engine, you claim makes 115Hp, is Over Revved to probably 8800 Rpm, cost $6000.00, last maybe one race weekend (if your lucky), or breaks crankshafts. IMO the Hulings Rotax 593 Engine is not and never has been a viable F500 2-Stroke race engine that has the required durability and life for a low budget F500 class!

Basically i nearly agree with you. The 593 when tuned to make that power is a killer motor with limited life of 2 to 3 weekends, WHEN PROPERLY INSTALLED!

ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT, UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THE 593 IS SUPER COMPETITIVE!

I have tried with LETTERS TO THE CRB TO ELIMINATE THE INTAKE RESTRICTORS AND REV LIMIT THE RPM TO A MAXIMUM OF 8200 TO 8300 RPM. This would allow the motor to still make 115 hp with the right pipe. This proposal was turned down by the CRB. What ideas do you have? The reality is that to make the power under the current rules the engine will not live for a season. The SCCA MADE THE RULES NOT ME.

ANY SUGGESTIONS?

[sathorp]

Basically i nearly agree with you. The 593 when tuned to make that power is a killer motor with limited life of 2 to 3 weekends, WHEN PROPERLY INSTALLED!

ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT, UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THE 593 IS SUPER COMPETITIVE!

I have tried with LETTERS ro the CRB TO ELIMINATE THE INTAKE RESTRICTORS AND REV LIMIT THE RPM TO A MAXIMUM OF 8200 TO 8300 RPM. This would allow the motor to still make 115 hp with the right pipe. This proposal was turned down by the CRB. What ideas do you have? The reality is that to make the power under the current rules the engine will not live for a season. The SCCA MADE THE RULES NOT ME.

ANY SUGGESTIONS?

I don't want get into a big fight or an argument about how the engine is currently configured to achieve ~115 Hp. Clearly, that configuration of the engine is not working. I also don't want to argue anymore about who made the rules or why, it's not productive. IMO an engine that produces 115 Hp with a life of maybe 2 to 3 weekends is not practical or cost effective. I'm in total agreement with you that any F500 engine configuration has to have the durability/life for a minimum of one season and it still be able to maintain close to the 115hp level to be a viable competitive F500 race engine.

Where I think we get into some rules conflicts is 2-Stroke Expansion Pipes have always been open in the rules. So, proposals that use a Spec Pipe to limit the Rpm are going to be expensive because everyone that has to develop and buy a new pipe. It also limits any 2-stoke changes to the pipe. The 494/493 owners also worry that this spec pipe is going to be applied to their engine too! This also has to be policed by SCCA tech. I don’t think a spec pipe is the way to go.

I don't own a Rotax 593 engine because of all these current Durability and Life issues. This is exactly why I have focused on using the 494/493 Engine Package. I have none of these Durability/Life issues. I’m still thinking about submitting low cost rule changes to the Rotax 494 Engine package. But I don’t want to sacrifice the Durability and Life of the Engine for performance. I’m still weighing my options.

[Jnovak]

I don't want get into a big fight or an argument about how the engine is currently configured to achieve ~115 Hp. Clearly, that configuration of the engine is not working. I also don't want to argue anymore about who made the rules or why, it's not productive. IMO an engine that produces 115 Hp with a life of maybe 2 to 3 weekends is not practical or cost effective. I'm in total agreement with you that any F500 engine configuration has to have the durability/life for a minimum of one season and it still be able to maintain close to the 115hp level to be a viable competitive F500 race engine.

Where I think we get into some rules conflicts is 2-Stroke Expansion Pipes have always been open in the rules. So, proposals that use a Spec Pipe to limit the Rpm are going to be expensive because everyone that has to develop and buy a new pipe. It also limits any 2-stoke changes to the pipe. The 494/493 owners also worry that this spec pipe is going to be applied to their engine too! This also has to be policed by SCCA tech. I don’t think a spec pipe is the way to go.

I don't own a Rotax 593 engine because of all these current Durability and Life issues. This is exactly why I have focused on using the 494/493 Engine Package. I have none of these Durability/Life issues. I’m still thinking about submitting low cost rule changes to the Rotax 494 Engine package. But I don’t want to sacrifice the Durability and Life of the Engine for performance. I’m still weighing my options.

I recently wrote another letter eliminating my original spec pipe part of my proposal. However i do think that a spec pipe will reduce costs and reduce clutch tuning issues.

Imo the rpm should be done by a slight programming mod to the ecu. My tech sources at Bombardier say this can be done.

Imo without rpm limits there will be some who will build engines and pipes to make more power no matter the cost.

[sathorp]

I recently wrote another letter eliminating my original spec pipe part of my proposal. However i do think that a spec pipe will reduce costs and reduce clutch tuning issues.

Imo the rpm should be done by a slight programming mod to the ecu. My tech sources at Bombardier say this can be done.

Imo without rpm limits there will be some who will build engines and pipes to make more power no matter the cost.

It sounds like you've eliminated Spec Pipes out of your proposal. Then there's no reason to fight or argue that technically!

Are you proposing programing the Rpm Limit into MPEM ECU on the Rotax 593 Engines only?
How does SCCA Tech check the Rpm Limit in the MPEM ECU?

[Jnovak]

It sounds like you've eliminated Spec Pipes out of your proposal. Then there's no reason to fight or argue that technically!

Are you proposing programing the Rpm Limit into MPEM ECU on the Rotax 593 Engines only?
How does SCCA Tech check the Rpm Limit in the MPEM ECU?

The factory has an ecu tuner/reader. However they are not available to the general public but but I'm sure that tech can get one. Will check next week

Or tech just revs it up on a stand?

Yes on q2

[sathorp]

[QUOTE=

Yes on q2[/QUOTE]

Did you mean yes to this question? Are you proposing programing the Rpm Limit into MPEM ECU on the Rotax 593 Engines only?

Originally the 25mm Restrictors where put into the Rotax 593 Engines to matched the performance of the Rotax 494/493 Engines. Sounds like your latest proposal removes the Rotax 595 25mm Restrictors and then limits the RPM of the Rotax 593 Engines to produce 115 Hp.

I have a CRB draft proposal I'm working on. So, I'm just curious about the need to submit Dyno Data to the CRB. I'd prefer not to spend a lot of my time and money doing Engine Dyno Testing. Therefore, based on your latest proposal did you submit any Engine Dynometer Test Data to compare the Rotax 494/493, Rotax 593, and 600cc MC engines?

[Jnovak]

I just spent an hour writing about my two engine proposals that were both approved by the crb. Extensive dyno work was completed for both proposals totalling about $7000 in expenditures for both projects as follows and my computer crashed. Below is a much abbreviated version!

1. Approval of the 494 engine for use in F500 approx $4000 for purchase of 494 engine and purchase of a used dyno and all bits etc. Plus about 200 man hours of my time

2. Approval of the use of 600cc motorcycle engine including the use of Hulings Racing Prodects shop and dyno work, approx $3000 for this work and nachined bits to adapt engine to dyno. Luckily for me 4 other F5 competitors contributed a total of $1500 to this project.

So the long and short of it is that in my opinion dyno work will be required in order to get approval for any new engine proposals for F500. Some of this data may already exist.

To make this happen lots needs to happen in both time and $$!

Who volunteers to get this done?

[Jnovak]

I don't want get into a big fight or an argument about how the engine is currently configured to achieve ~115 Hp. Clearly, that configuration of the engine is not working

"NOT WORKING" You're kidding me, right. We won the runoffs! Imo that means it works, imo of course.

I believe that if we had run the car the following season we would have won the Runoffs again

[sathorp]

So the long and short of it is that in my opinion dyno work will be reqyired in order to get approval for any new engine proposals. Some of this dara ma exist.

To make this happen lots needs to happen in both time and $$!

Wyho volunteers to get this done?

I found independent 3rd party Dyno Data that's already been published. So, I think I can write a technical
rational for the CRB based on this independent 3rd party Data if I decide to submit the proposal.

Good Luck with your proposal!
I'll wait to see what decision is made by the CRB.

[Jnovak]

I found independent 3rd party Dyno Data that's already been published. So, I think I can write a technical
rational for the CRB based on this independent 3rd party Data if I decide to submit the proposal.

Good Luck with your proposal!
I'll wait to see what decision is made by the CRB.

That may be the data used by the 593 engine committee and is good data, however i am m.j not certain what combinations they tried.

[sathorp]

"NOT WORKING" Your kidding me, right. We won the runoffs! Imo that means it works, imo of course.

I believe that if we had run the car the following season we would have won the Runoffs again

Define success:

If you win one Runoff Race with a $6000 engine that only lasts 2-3 race weekends is that success in terms of the long-term health, participation, and competitiveness of the F500 class?

IMO this is Club Racing it’s not Professional Racing!!! Are you out to win at all cost is there no limits even if it destroys the F500 class?

This $6000 engine that only lasts 2-3 race weekends is the Rotax 593 Engine Target or Standard you keep pointing to continuously! You tell me in terms of F500 car count, participation, and long-term health of the F500 class is your $6000 engine that only lasts 2-3 race weekends that is your Rotax 593 Engine target or standard for the class WORKING?

[Jnovak]

Define success:

If you win one Runoff Race with a $6000 engine that only lasts 2-3 race weekends is that success in terms of the long-term health, participation, and competitiveness of the F500 class?

IMO this is Club Racing it’s not Professional Racing!!! Are you out to win at all cost is there no limits even if it destroys the F500 class?

This $6000 engine that only lasts 2-3 race weekends is the Rotax 593 Engine Target or Standard you keep pointing to continuously! You tell me in terms of F500 car count, participation, and long-term health of the F500 class is your $6000 engine that only lasts 2-3 race weekends that is your Rotax 593 Engine target or standard for the class WORKING?

Ok i surrender, you're forgetting that our engine did not blow up and was torn down in impound and was legal in every respect! The reality is that i do not actually know how long it would live with my engine mounting system. So your condemnation of our efforts and wins is sorrow grapes. My cars have won a lot of races and Championships i suggest you do the same. Or better yet fix whats wrong with F500

[sathorp]

Ok i surrender, your forgetting that our engine did not blow up and was torn down in impound and was legal in every respect! The reality is that i do not actually know how long it would live with my engine mounting system. So your condemnation of our eforts and wins is sorrow grapes. My cars have won a lot of races and Championships i suggest you do the same. Or better yet fix whats wrong with F500

I surrender also!!!