A few questions (and a few thoughts)

[Scott Siegel]

After reading the many posts on costs I wonder if there isn't an easier, more fair way to even things out, bring costs down, but not put the motor builders out of business.

I feel this last point is very important because the motor builders have really helped raise this sport to where it is. If the 125's weren't so stinkin' fast, we'd have even less press. The Speeds have given the bigger press (Speedvision, public (non-kart specific) magazines) etc something to focus on, which can certainely do nothing but HELP THE WHOLE SPORT.

I would also have to say that nobody can argue the fact that it is still MUCH cheaper to buy the Swedetech, or Leading Edge, or other KNOWN fast motor than to try to develop their own (I'm new, Swedetech and Leading Edge just came to mind, watch out for the future GRT though.) In other words, it is much easier to scrape together the money to buy a KNOWN fast motor, than to try and build one. IMagine if we had to buy a chassis dyno, track, mill, micrometers, etc to be competitive. $5,000 for a smoking fast motor is suddenly VERY cheap. PLus it just a fact that if you want to be competitive on any kind of SKUSA level you need a built motor. So anybody planning on making the jump to shifters should know this is a "built-in" expense from the start. That said, I don't think anybody (excpet maybe the motor builders) would complain if a top-level motor were much cheaper. Even the builders might like it if EVERYBODY'S was cheaper, they could sell a lot more.

That leads to the questions. Does anybody KNOW whether the top motors are "filled" or just ported. This question can be expanded to say, is filling necessary to "match" motors. I know the reason we can't all just run stock MX motors is that stockers vary almost as much as built do (from the best to the worst). So, would it require the cash to buy many motors to find one that had enough metal, or is the difference usually too much metal, that could be ported away?

My point here is that IF filling is NOT necessary to MATCH (blueprint I suppose) motors AND the top motors do a lot of filling, then making a rule against filling could bring the cost of the top motors down. Hopefully with the cost of truly TOP motors in the more stomachable range, say, 2,500-3,000, instead of 5,000-15,000 (don't even think $15,000 hasn't been spent ) almost everybody wanting to compete in SKUSA could afford a closely matched motor.

That said, next question. Does anybody KNOW, I mean back-to-back testing, that stock CDI's vary significantly. I have heard from very good sources that they do. If that's true, then the idea of a spec curve, put in by SKUSA before each race (I believe this can be quick and easy???) and/or checked after the race might be a good thing (almost) all around. PI's really aren't that expensive, and I think almost everybody would much prefer them as a field-LEVELING device than a go-fast device.

This last move would hurt the motor-builders who have spent a lot of time on their curves, but I have a feeling that most use this as a final, and simple tuning device. And I hope most would agree that field-leveling would help the sport more than enough.

I hope I haven't offended anybody, the whole no-filling and spec curves thing just came to mind. Maybe make a spec pipe, or because of the realtively cheap cost, leave pipes open for the motor builders to play with.


Thanks,
Scott
<><
Siegel Racing

[ July 25, 2001: Message edited by: Scott Siegel ]

[John Denman]

From the motor development perspective, yes they are a good bit stronger with copious mods. The fillings are both to shape ports as well as equalize flow. It would really make sense to do this in production with higher quality constraints rather than expect each motor to be hand built.

In addition, cutting and re-welding cases to fit a different carb boot adds to the incremental cost.

The original intent of very open rules was good to a point, but when the development cost and durability emphasizes wallet size over driver ability, it defeats the purpose of shifter kart racing.

And yes, OEM CDI's do have variance, but not enough to make the significant difference PI does. OEM CDI's are designed for bikes that rev less, and are not optimized for over-rev. In fact most optimized to enhance under-rev to for better hill climb characteristics.

We tested several different OEM CDI's of various years on our CR80. About .1 second difference. We run an SPI box that makes about .4 seconds over the best OEM. Programming a curve to the conditions can make another .1-.2 difference, but this gets very busy to do at the track. Time is much better spent tuning chassis when your splitting tenths.

I would love to see the FC and ICC motors become a part of American shifter kart scene. Most are already toleranced and 95% optimized, and are usually more robust. A little more cost out of the box, and supposedly a lot less cost through the season.

I understand they are running an FC as a local option in Great Lakes Region of SKUSA, so at the end of the season I am hoping to hear if they are more or less expensive to operate than a MotoX motor.

Riley Will in Alberta has also commented on this, but I understand that as CR125's are reaching grenade status, they are also slightly faster than FC.

Power alone does not make racing a spectacular entertainment worthy sport. Parity does. I believe FC and ICC could bring the parity to enhance shifter kart racing.