F500 carbs

[Jnovak]

I don't own a Rotax 593 Engine and I have no intention of ever owning a Rotax 593 engine.
I also never plan to overrev any Rotax 2-Cycle Engine by approximately 10%. So, you may
have a serious question in your mind! But I have no interest what so ever in discussing Rotax
593 crankshaft breakage or High Cycle Fatigue of Rotax 593 Crankshafts with anyone.

You need to go find someone who owns a Rotax 593 engine and wants to discuss this issue
with you. Because I don't care, I own 10 Rotax 494 engine and 2 Rotax 493 engines I don’t
have crankshaft breakage problem!

Scott.

Scott the only problem with your thoughts on this is that the 593 engine as used in the F500 class is the defacto performance target for F500. With the current min weights for the 494 and the 593, the 494 would need about 110 hp and imo that is not possible under the current rules.

[sathorp]

How many times do we have to go through this? There is NO STANDARD in the F500 class DeFaco or otherwise!!! The only standard that exists is in someones head! People just don't get it!

[sathorp]

The metric used is acceleratiopn from 60 to 100 mph in a straight line for casrs with the scca data aq system on the car.

However they have been ignoring that metric in F500 for years.

SCCA is not the problem, quit blaming SCCA, and the CRB!!!

[sathorp]

As a curious bystander and a lover of the smell of Blendzall. . . what breakage problem do you have that warrants the need for 12 engines? Or is it just a collection to ensure the future needs of the class participants are met?

How many folks are actively campaigning that engine package?

I'm still writing a reply, I'll have a reply latter today!

[Jnovak]

SCCA is not the problem, quit blaming SCCA, and the CRB!!!

2 questions.

What is the problem?

Then why can't the 494 engines compete?

[sathorp]

2 questions.

What is the problem?

Then why can't the 494 engines compete?

Please Don't Feed the F500 Forum Troll!!!