Jere Gellerman | 6 Jun 04:22 1998
Picon

Dyno of Rotax

Has anyone dynoed a Rotax or the AMW? If so what type of pipe were you
using?

Jere' Gellerman

HCJIII | 9 Jun 00:25 1998
Picon

Re: Dyno of Rotax

According to Olav Aaen, the Rotax with the Aaen pipes makes 94 horsepower.
I build the AMW engines and have dynoed quite a few and with the standard
"y" pipe it makes 84 to 85 hp, and with the shorter "illegal" "y" pipe it
makes 89 hp.  It is quite obvious that the people running Rotax engines want
to keep their unfair advantage and it is also quite obvious that a few
people want to force us out of the class.  They will have succeeded unless
Denver makes a rule change to either limit the Rotax or give us the same
rules.  Then all you will have is a foreign made engine whose producers care
nothing about this class or its advancement.

Howell Jones III #7 KBS SE DIV
-----Original Message-----
From: Jere Gellerman <racerj@...>
To: f500@... <f500@...>
Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 10:35 PM
Subject: Dyno of Rotax

Has anyone dynoed a Rotax or the AMW? If so what type of pipe were you
using?

Jere' Gellerman

Dan Gerney | 9 Jun 04:54 1998
Picon

Re: Dyno of Rotax

It seems to me that over the past few years that there has been
considerable price/expense creep in the F500 class without a
corresponding increase in technology. Yet there seems to be no movement
towards controlling these costs by seeking some kind of specification to
cover such items as, well, engines for example. Why not have just one
engine for the class which would be tuned and sealed by an authorized
SCCA shop? Another question I have is what is the difference, if any,
between the torque ratings of the 85hp AMW and the 94 hp Rotax? Is it
significant enough to allow the Rotax the extra hp to compensate?
Finally, if the Rotax really is at that much of an advantage, and you
really want to be competitive, then why not sell your AMW in favor of the
more powerful engine? Many competitors have already done this anyway. 

DG

On Mon, 8 Jun 1998 18:25:37 -0400 "HCJIII" <hcjiii@...> writes:
>According to Olav Aaen, the Rotax with the Aaen pipes makes 94
horsepower.
>I build the AMW engines and have dynoed quite a few and with the
standard
>"y" pipe it makes 84 to 85 hp, and with the shorter "illegal" "y" pipe
it makes 89 hp.  It >is quite obvious that the people running Rotax
engines want to keep their unfair >advantage and it is also quite obvious
that a few people want to force us out of the >class.  They will have
succeeded unless Denver makes a rule change to either limit >the Rotax or
give us the same rules.  Then all you will have is a foreign made engine
>whose producers care nothing about this class or its advancement.
>
>Howell Jones III #7 KBS SE DIV

(Continue reading)

HCJIII | 9 Jun 18:55 1998
Picon

Re: Dyno of Rotax

I would like to clear a few things up for mister Gerney.  It is an extremely
bad joke to think that turning over our engine program to the SCCA would
lessen the cost of our racing.  Not to mention the fact that to have a
sealed two stoke engine is a ridiculous idea.
Also, horsepower = Torque times RPM.  Therefore, an engine that makes its
power at 7400 to 7700 RPM depending which pipe you put on it (Rotax) will
automatically make more torque than an engine that makes its hp at 8000 RPM
(AMW) even if the hp were equal.
Last but not least, I am one of the owners of the company that manufactures
the AMW race engine.   Therefore it would be a cold day you know where
before I by an Austrian two stoke engine.  Nor do I feel it is fair to tell
people that they have to throw away their AMW engine even though they may be
extremely satisfied with it because club politics will not allow the engines
to be equal.  Not to mention the fact that parts for the Rotax are much more
expensive and you will get no factory support.
Hopefully this will clear up some confusion.

Howell Jones III #7 KBS SE DIV
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Gerney <leadphoot@...>
To: f500@... <f500@...>
Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Dyno of Rotax

>It seems to me that over the past few years that there has been
>considerable price/expense creep in the F500 class without a
>corresponding increase in technology. Yet there seems to be no movement
>towards controlling these costs by seeking some kind of specification to
>cover such items as, well, engines for example. Why not have just one
>engine for the class which would be tuned and sealed by an authorized
(Continue reading)

Dan Gerney | 10 Jun 01:31 1998
Picon

Re: Dyno of Rotax

My apologies hcjiii. It was not my intent to make a bad joke or to insult
you. It does seem to me however that there are hardly, if ever, any
discussions on how to keep the costs in check in F500. A "spec" engine
seemed like a possibility. A couple of years ago a new race ready F500
could be purchased for around $12500. A race ready car today is $18000.
Yet there hasn't been any significant technolgical advancement in the
class. The increase is much more than inflation, too. Perhaps it's merely
a matter of no one caring about the expense increases in this class.
Anyway, thanks for clearing things up for me.

DG

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:55:17 -0400 "HCJIII" <hcjiii@...> writes:
>I would like to clear a few things up for mister Gerney.  It is an 
>extremely
>bad joke to think that turning over our engine program to the SCCA 
>would
>lessen the cost of our racing.  Not to mention the fact that to have a
>sealed two stoke engine is a ridiculous idea.
>Also, horsepower = Torque times RPM.  Therefore, an engine that makes 
>its
>power at 7400 to 7700 RPM depending which pipe you put on it (Rotax) 
>will
>automatically make more torque than an engine that makes its hp at 
>8000 RPM
>(AMW) even if the hp were equal.
>Last but not least, I am one of the owners of the company that 
>manufactures
>the AMW race engine.   Therefore it would be a cold day you know where
>before I by an Austrian two stoke engine.  Nor do I feel it is fair to 
(Continue reading)

David Jansen | 10 Jun 04:32 1998

FW: Dyno of Rotax


----------
From:  David Jansen
Sent:  Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:28 PM
To:  'Dan Gerney'
Subject:  RE: Dyno of Rotax

Well I've heard enough vitriolic "stuff" from Mr. Howell C. Jones III for a bit.  I'll address the points in my
own humble opinion that Mr. Howell raises:

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:55:17 -0400 "HCJIII" <hcjiii@...> writes:
  It is an  extremely bad joke to think that turning over our engine program to the SCCA would lessen the cost of
our racing.  
  Very strange that the part owner of AMW would state this opinion now, as that is EXACTLY the rationale stated
by AMW as a major factor for the positive when that motor was adopted by SCCA.

Not to mention the fact that to have a sealed two stoke engine is a ridiculous idea.
Again, very strange that the part owner of AMW would now state that when the Kaw 440 motor was the same way, as
was the AMW when it replaced the AMW.

Nor do I feel it is fair to tell people that they have to throw away their AMW engine even though they may be
extremely satisfied with it because club politics will not allow the engines to be equal.  
Gee Mr. Howell C. Jones III, just imagine how the owners of all the Kaw 440 motors felt when the AMW motor was
selected for the class.  It seems a little late to try this staid tired approach.

Not to mention the fact that parts for the Rotax are much more expensive and you will get no factory support.
Lets see now, AMW parts were/are how much more expensive than Kaw 440 parts?  And factory support, such as
supplying parts not recognized by SCCA resulting in a frantic rebuilding one year in order to try and have
legal motors for the Runoffs?

(Continue reading)

JMsidwnder | 10 Jun 08:47 1998
Picon

tech advances

If the cars are not any different now why are the track records falling by two
or three seconds ?All the car makers are working to improve the cars and
Sidewinder is just a little diferent than some of the other cars, so I don't
think you can say there is no changes ( I will leave it to you to deside if it
is any more advanced) . I would like to say that the fastest time recorded
(MPH) by a Sidewinder was with an AMW motor, they are fast motors as HJ has
proved  time and again.Sebring this weekend saw an all Sidewinder race , a
Kawasaki 440 , a !st generation Rotax, and the new 1998 car ( !st of  5 to be
delivered)  also a Rotax, The heat was killer, but we had fun . If you want a
spec class go run SRF. Just my opinion, Jeff 

Bob Featherly | 10 Jun 16:25 1998

Re: The Rotax/AMW Fracas

Re: F5 Costs and the Engine Issue.

Knowing that little good will paobably come from entering this debate, I'll
take a shot anyway.

Before purchasing my F5, I walked the pits for 2 yrs learning what I could
about this and similar classes. The one constant refrain was chronic
displeasure with the AMW power plant. Everyone was pleased with the power,
but these engines were breaking down at record rates. The promise of the
Rotax brand engine being approved for National competition was what kept
some going. I spoke with National competitors that were rebuilding their
AMW twice a weekend. But others were simply loading their trailers with
hung faces over the money they'd spend to prepare, travel etc., only to
break before the fun really began. Several complained about gross quality
problems in their replacement parts from the factory.

Toward the end of last season, when the Rotax had proved its reliability,
AMW engines were on the block for pennies on the dollar. One competitor
tried to sell his package of 2 for $1000, with no takers.

When I purchased my KBS MKVII this winter, it had a Rotax installed and a
former AMW engine package also included, with trick pipes, clutch, starter
everything needed. After advertising the AMW for sale everywhere I could
think of, it was finally purchased from an ad on this web site for $650. I
felt fortunate. I'm told some have gone for $250 to $500.

I don't know where the recently posted hp disparity claim truly comes from,
but one of the oldest and best SCCA engine builders in our area has not
found any significant hp difference between these engines on his dyno. He
does feel that there significant design and production quality differences
(Continue reading)

Dan Gerney | 10 Jun 19:51 1998
Picon

Re: tech advances

Please don't put words into my mouth. I said NO MAJOR CHANGES. I did not
say no changes at all. Certainly not significant enough changes to
warrant the cost increases over the past few years. This notwithstanding,
it would appear that I'm trying to speak to the deaf with regard to cost
control so I'll keep it to myself.

DG

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:47:30 EDT JMsidwnder@... writes:
>If the cars are not any different now why are the track records 
>falling by two
>or three seconds ?All the car makers are working to improve the cars 
>and
>Sidewinder is just a little diferent than some of the other cars, so I 
>don't
>think you can say there is no changes ( I will leave it to you to 
>deside if it
>is any more advanced) . I would like to say that the fastest time 
>recorded
>(MPH) by a Sidewinder was with an AMW motor, they are fast motors as 
>HJ has
>proved  time and again.Sebring this weekend saw an all Sidewinder race 
>, a
>Kawasaki 440 , a !st generation Rotax, and the new 1998 car ( !st of  
>5 to be
>delivered)  also a Rotax, The heat was killer, but we had fun . If you 
>want a
>spec class go run SRF. Just my opinion, Jeff 
>

(Continue reading)

Dan Gerney | 10 Jun 20:26 1998
Picon

Re: Dyno of Rotax

>A race ready, competitive car, was available a few months ago for about
>$11,000, complete.  ALL new race cars have gone up (have you priced FV's
>lately?)

Many used cars can be had for the price you've mentioned. New,
competitive cars ready to do laps are considerably more than $11,000.
Much closer to $20,000.

The fact that other race cars may have gone up in price does not justify
a price increase. The percentage of increase in F500 over the past few
years has far outpaced inflation, and the technological advances have
been minimal. 

>As far as spec engines go, most people will agree that while SRF is a 
>very popular class, they pay some enormous premiums to be a spec class. 
A 
>"spec" fee for every race, have to ship the engine to a designated
rebuilder 
>who "promises" a 3 week turnaround.

The RCCA seems to have a system that works for their "spec" formula car.
When in need of a rebuild the motor is sent in and a freshly rebuilt
motor is sent out. They usually pass each other in the mail. Very minimal
downtime. $800 fee for the swap. By the way, the RCCA's spec formula car
has a gearbox, 1600cc motor, suspension, wings, and side pods for $13500
race ready. If they try for SCCA homoligation all of my F500 concerns
will become moot.

>Yeah, I'd love to see the prices hold steady.  I don't think you've seen
the
(Continue reading)


Gmane