[Rob Kozakowski]

No right answers, no wrong answers.

I love the concept of trying to get the kids into it, but after almost 30 years around the sport, it doesn’t work, especially these days.  As said before, the best kids want to move on to cars, and seem to quit racing altogether if they don’t make it.  A lot of the kids racing “like” it, but don’t truly “love” it or “live for” it.  When mom and dad stop paying for it, they’re done, and most don’t miss it that much.  Even the ones who do love it and live for it, can’t afford it on their own, and have no choice but to get out of it until they can afford it later in life (i.e. I’m describing myself).

As great as it sounds to focus on the kids, very few of them will be racing karts when they’re adults.  What I’m saying is don’t ignore the kids, but as a sport we have to be realistic about what history has proven.  The best chance to get racers we’ll keep is by focusing on the mid-20’s and older group.  These are the guys who decide on their own to do it, meaning they’re doing it because they have a passion for racing, and it’s safe to assume they’ll always have some money to continue to pursue it.

 

As far as the “top down” or “bottom up” focus, I think it needs to be BOTH working together, not just one of the two.

The good of “bottom up” is that you serve your immediate area’s market in the short term.  The bad of the “bottom up” is that each market ends up with a different solution, which creates the fragmentation we have in the sport, that only seems to be getting worse.

The reverse is true for the “top down”.  The good of “top down” is you eliminate a lot of the fragmentation, while the bad is you might not understand the uniqueness of each market.

Where I think it needs to come together is that we need the “czar” or strong organization at the top to communicate with the groups below, keep the politics out of it, and set a sensible direction that all the local clubs and tracks can buy into.  And yes, licensing can make sense, even at the club level.

Others have said it before, but the models followed in dirt bike racing, and snowmobile racing have ensured minimal fragmentation, where each has a strong governing organization at the top with a relatively simple and sensible formula to allow the local groups to thrive.

Make no mistake, SKUSA is strong because there is a czar controlling things.  The only problem is that SKUSA is about the high end customer, and Shifters and TAG aren’t the base of club racing.

 

In my opinion, the worst thing to ever happen to the sport was Rotax Max, which led to the Leopard, then the ROK, then Easykart, and all this TAG mess throughout North America, and the fragmentation it has created.  The CIK then didn’t help by introducing the cluster that was KF, which left no alternative to the TAG mess for anyone who wanted a faster 2-stroke.

The biggest problem with the TAG mess is these engines cost a lot, so it won’t be easy to get people to shelf their $3500-4000 TAG engine(s) for the long-term betterment of the sport as a whole.  Until we’re willing to do that, I think we’re screwed.

 

If I was the czar, I’d have L206 Cadet, Junior, Senior Light, and Senior Heavy.  Great, cheap, simple, competitive, and fun engine package.  This would be the base, and nobody can dispute it’s value to clubs’ growth. (4 classes)

For the recreational 2-cycle guy, I’d offer a single KT100 class, at a Heavy weight.  Where I don’t know what you do, is for the serious 2-cycle guy.  KF sucks.  What I’d want is a return to ICA/JICA at a light weight.  What I’d probably have to settle for until the CIK comes up with something good, is to settle for TAG (which sucks).  Give weight breaks to different engine packages, and let guys have 4 different engines if they want them – after all, they’re the serious guys.  You don’t like it, run the KT100. (5 classes – 2 at senior level, 2 at junior, KT only for cadet)

Then do 3 shifter classes.  1) Stock Honda Light and Masters/Heavy – like it or not, it has been good.  And “open”, which basically means KZ, at a light weight.  No junior shifters.  There’s just not enough juniors running them, even at the SKUSA level, to make it a “must have.

12 classes total.  At the club level, run as:

Group 1 – L206 and KT100 Cadet (combined)

Group 2 – L206 Jr and KT Jr (combined)

Group 3 – L206 Senior Light and Heavy and KT Sr (3 classes combined)

Group 4 – Junior TAG

Group 5 – Senior TAG

Group 6 – Shifters (all 3 combined)

[Rob Kozakowski]

Kevin! Go to 4cycle.com and check out their forums – Briggs OHV section and ask the question. You’ll get more feedback over there!

You already know how I feel about it.

In John Hughes’ words, Kevin D and I had the race of the weekend (even if he beat me) – and we’ve been battling each other wheel to wheel like that all season – without any engine failures, without fiddling with the engines, and without spending any money other than adding gas and changing oil.

Ask Noel D about it too – he had more fun than his Rotax, which is exactly how I feel about it.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Glenn, I can understand the frustration of the people in Eastern Canada who were heavily invested in the old Honda GX program. Nobody can deny the success of that program – the numbers say it all. But success and numbers doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s still the best option in today’s world.

While the East was heavily invested in the GX program, it was actually the West where the inherent problems with the GX program were witnessed. The GX program never really caught on in the West. There were small pockets of racers here and there, but even the ones who had strong results with the GX in the West were always looking for alternatives because they found that the strong results came at a cost that made no sense for “entry-level” 4-cycle racing.

As a result, the West has seen different clubs adopt almost every alternative 4-cycle class imaginable – clones built to varying levels of “ASN-GX specs”, modified clones, World Formulas, Animals, TKM, etc. While none of these were “great” solutions, at least they were viewed as better than spending $2500 (not at all uncommon) for a competitive, but still slow GX engine (“ASN clones” being cheaper, the others being faster).

The West is still having troubles getting any significant numbers in 4-cycle, but that’s really no different than karting in general in the West right now. Aside from the 2 clubs in Alberta (one of which has had no track this year), karting participation is low in the West. But, if you look at the 2 Alberta clubs, a large part of their growth is coming from the LO206 program because it’s not only cheap to get into (to GET people into the seat in the first place), but it’s simple and cheap to operate (to KEEP people in the seat long-term).

The Honda GX program wasn’t “bad” per se, but there were inherent problems (cost to be competitive – i.e. run at the front – at even the club level; plus the changes in manufacturing specs of the engines over the years that made keeping the rule book up-to-date a real challenge) with the program that were masked somewhat by the fact that people were so heavily invested in the East.

The guys in the East who have made the switch to the LO206 that I’ve spoken to have unanimously agreed that the LO206 is a better program (even if they were almost all skeptical at first, and many took a loss on their GX equipment).

[Rob Kozakowski]

Glenn, it sounds to me like you’re a club racer. Just buy a LO206, pull it out of the box, mount it on the frame and go.

1. Believe me, the difference between a “club” vs. a “national” LO206 won’t even be felt by the average club racer – the same cannot be said for the difference between a “club” and a “national” Honda GX, where you’re talking over a second per lap on many tracks.

2. Coming from some very reputable people (in Western Canada), who have accumulated numerous LO206’s in the effort to put the rumours to bed, the gap between a “fast” one and a “dud” has generally been found to be about 0.3 of a second. Yes, at the national level, that’s huge. Even a top-level club racer will probably be disappointed with that. But for the average club racer, it’s not going to make any real difference. Again, comparing with the Honda GX program, we’re still much closer with the LO206 program.

3. You started out by saying the most economical way to race in Canada my not be the LO206. Let me just say that if you think a $2,700 “national” LO206 engine is expensive, then don’t even bother asking about what a fast Rotax Max will cost you.

Bottom line, buy an engine in a box, open it up and race it. I’m sure you can find one in the East. If not, I’ll gladly refer you to several people in the West who’ll ship one to you.

[Rob Kozakowski]

It’s not the best picture…

The head looks similar to a Mac Minarelli… 125 shifter??? Which clearly the engine is not…

[Rob Kozakowski]

To add to Bill’s statement, I’ve seen differing opinions on whether a $90 helmet can be as safe as a $300/500/700/900/etc. helmet.  Let’s just say that fit is critical with any helmet.  But…

If you’re having that much neck fatigue, I’m going to guess the $90 helmet is probably making it worse… most $90 helmets that I’ve tried weigh “significantly” more than the more expensive helmets… where “significantly” means enough to be the difference between struggling to hold your head up and driving comfortably throughout an entire race.

I know a helmet is a helmet and a suit is a suit, but if a less expensive helmet or suit is causing excess fatigue, I question how safe that really is.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Last year for me… 388 across the scale at my lightest.  I weighed 193 then.  That means 195 allocated to kart (30mm Italkart Rapido V, 25mm stub axles, Mychron 4 with GPS, the heavier battery), fuel in the tank and H2O cooling in the rad, and driving gear (helmet, suit, gloves, shoes, Rictect 3).

I have no clue what the driver gear and fluids weigh, but personally, I include it in the weight of the kart (i.e. not the weight of the driver – me in socks, shorts and a t-shirt).

[Rob Kozakowski]

Walt, I think some of the A&D in Ontario is a lot better than most of the stuff we are familiar with.

Anyways, Ontario has a great LO206 program right now, and it’s growing all across Canada.  The great thing about it is there is a big mix of VERY good drivers as well as plenty of guys just starting out.  Although it’s a great entry-level class, it also attracts a lot of experienced guys because it is so simple, cheap and fun.  It might be a bit slower, but it’s not slow, and everyone else is going the same speed anyways, so there’s good racing.  Point being, there will be someone at your level to race with, no matter how good (or bad) you are, which will make it way more fun than jumping into a Rotax and potentially getting blown away for your first season.

Walt’s advice about chassis is more geared to the US market.  Up here in Canada, it’s a bit different.  Get yourself a proper 4-cycle chassis, made to be run at 50″ wide with a lower hp engine, made for a sit up seat, CIK bodywork, and 6″ wide rear tires, rather than a 2-cycle kart, or a US-WKA-style “gold-cup” kart.

In Ontario, the bigger names in 4-cycle are (in no particular order) K&K, Birel, CRG, Tony, Arrow, Margay, OK1/Intrepid/Praga, and a few others.  You can’t really go wrong with any of them.  Check out the links on ekartingnews.ca to a lot of the dealers in Ontario.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Jeff, the weights seem to change for the Masters classes, depending on where you race.  Generally, if you can get to 200 lbs, you won’t be giving up too much.  180-190 lbs range is probably ideal where you likely won’t have to add (too much) lead to the kart.

200 lbs might be on the heavy side for the kart, but with any amount of fuel in the kart when you come over the scales, it won’t be too far off.  190 lbs might be more realistic for the kart.  Add in driver gear, and 200 lbs of “non-driver-body” weight is close.

The battery you run can make at least a 2lbs difference on its own.

[Rob Kozakowski]

2-cycle is faster.  It is generally where the top drivers go – but there are some very good 4-cycle racers, and plenty of below-average guys in 2-cycle.

4-cycle may or may not be more reliable.

The new 2-cycle TAG engines (Rotax Max, Parilla Leopard, etc) and the Stock Honda or TAG-shifters are pretty reliable (good for 1-2 seasons between rebuilds), especially when racing at the club level.

Regular maintenance (non-rebuild) costs will be higher on the 2-cycle than the 4-cycle.

If going 4-cycle, the Briggs LO-206 is as inexpensive as you can get when it comes to total cost (buying + maintaining).  There are more “open” 4-cycle classes in some areas where reliability and costs can go up significantly.

 

[Rob Kozakowski]

About 200lbs would be a good ballpark figure.

Just an fyi, a Road Rebel (32) might be a bit much for the Rotax and Mojo’s, unless you’re carrying a lot of weight.

Even the Masters guys tend to run the KT1 (30) or Blackstar (30/32), if they’re on CRG.  I personally weigh between 190-200 at racing weight, and run a 30mm Italkart Rapido V.  The only 32mm karts I tend to see in Rotax are the OTK karts in Masters at the heavier weights.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I think Ontario has some decent arrive and drive “leagues” these days – much better than Walt has described…

That said, the Briggs LO206 at the club level is arguably the best (most cost effective, and simple) option that has ever been available in “normal” club-level kart racing.  Check out WRKC or any of the other kart clubs in the area out – they should almost all be offering the LO206 at this point, (I know that Goodwood sells the LO206 package).  ekn.ca has links to most, if not all the kart clubs in the area.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I’d say the best answer is “it depends”…

If you’re running the 2-cycle stuff at the SKUSA Pro Tour / FWT / Gatorz level, the newer, the better.  There’s a reason many of these guys have a new (or near new) chassis every weekend – I don’t think it just has to do with deep pockets.

If you raced those classes at the Regional level, it’s a little less important.  At the club level, it becomes much less important.  The top Rotax racer at my club won a ticket to the Rotax Worlds last year on a rented kart for that weekend.  At the club level, he runs a 5 year-old kart, and wins with his talent – his club kart would be a bit of a liability at the higher level though.

That said, if memory serves, a few years ago Jordan Musser showed up at the US Rotax Nationals with an older kart, and won.  So bigger events, even in the higher-hp classes, can be won by older karts.

If you take the LO206, and look at what the class is really focused on, it’s focused primarily on the club level.  In this case, you can absolutely take an older chassis and win with it.  At the club level, it’s mostly down to driver skill.

Where things might get a bit tricky is comparing WKA rules to other (IKF or ASN Canada) 4-cycle rules, and what impact a newer chassis, or a chassis designed for a 4-cycle, might have on things at the higher levels.

It’s been proven at the WKA Gold Cups that an older kart can win at the top levels.  In Canada, at the Nationals, I don’t know if you’d see this happen or not – while the karts might not be brand new out of the box, they’re normally pretty new, and designed for a 4-cycle.

In any event, I think it would be safe to say that a 4-cycle wouldn’t put the same stresses on a chassis as a TAG or shifter would, in terms of fatiguing the frame.

The biggest problem with older karts is that if you don’t know the history of the kart, you can often spend a lot of money straightening the frame, replacing bent components, brakes that leak, etc.  A lot of the time, it can cost less in the long run to buy a newer kart over an older kart.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Flathead Briggs once in about 1986 before I hit a tree.  Flathead Briggs for a year when started again in 1992.

Lots of different engines from 1993 until 2001, when I stopped racing.

Then 4-strokes when I got back in 2011-2012, before going Rotax in 2013, and shifting gears with a TM K9b this year.  If I didn’t already have the Rotax and the shifter, I’d be running a LO206 this year as well.

[Rob Kozakowski]

$3500 for a 2011 chassis and engine sounds reasonable… At least it would be where I live.

[Rob Kozakowski]

On the link, I think it drops the price by $1321 if you don’t need the accessories.  So $3500 (give or take), less $1321 = $2200 (+/-) for engine without accessories.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t know that was even an option.  If you were a real bargain hunter, you could probably piece together a Rotax with a new engine for a good price.  That said, new accessories will definitely add up to more than $1321 if you buy them individually.

[Rob Kozakowski]

You guys have more options in the US than us in Canada.  For us, it’s Rotax or 4-stroke.  And if you go Rotax, it’s pretty much all by the book – which means updates – even for most club racing.

[Rob Kozakowski]

First, you say you don’t plan to race it…

With that in mind, an older Rotax without updates would be fine – and it should be a lot less money.  If you don’t want to race it, you don’t have to worry about the seal or passport either – meaning you could do your own “major” maintenance – or you could have it done by anyone.

If you do that, you need to keep in mind it becomes harder to sell, unless it’s to someone else who doesn’t want to race it.

If you think you might want to race it, I’d advise getting a complete up-to-date engine.  Best bet to ensure that is to buy from a dealer who has a reputation to maintain, or do your research and understand what it is you need to look for.  Basically, anything 2009 or newer should be pretty safe, but do your research first.

There are 3 perceived big costs with the Rotax…

First comes from the fact that it is sealed for racing purposes.  Rotax has set up an authorized dealer network of shops that are allowed to work on and seal the engines, in an effort to ensure that the engines are kept relatively equal.  In theory anytime a seal is broken, the dealer will need to spend time checking to ensure that everything is legal before re-sealing because if the engine is ever teched, and found to be illegal, the last dealer to seal it is held responsible and sanctioned by Rotax.  The extra time to check things, and the fact that only authorized dealers can do the work means that “scheduled” maintenance costs are generally a bit higher than with some other engines.  In other words, it’s not an engine for guys who have to feel they save money by being the DIY’er.

The second big cost can come when Rotax issues updates.  New airbox.  New clutch and steel gears.  New cylinder.  Carb venturis.  Etc.  Normally the updates eventually become mandatory, and because everything has to be genuine Rotax parts, the costs can be higher.

Third, a new engine isn’t cheap to buy.

Make no mistake, all these costs are real.  That said, the engine is very reliable, so when you really to a total cost of ownership comparison to most other engines, I’d say almost all of the TAG engines are pretty equal in terms of cost.  And unlike some other engines that are totally re-designed and become “boat anchors” and need to be completely replaced, the updates avoid that problem that some other engines have.  You could literally use the same base engine for 10+ years with the Rotax, which is not very common in kart racing.

If you don’t want to race, or you just want to do club races, you should be able to get 2 full seasons on the top end.  Yes, you could even push to 50 hours if you wanted to at that level.  That said, most club racers will do a top end at the end of every season, and then every other year you’ll do top and bottom.  More for preventative purposes than anything.

I stayed away from the Rotax for a long time, and I regret it because it’s been surprisingly inexpensive to run it.  That said, I got a good deal on an up-to-date engine and avoided a lot o the headaches that come if you don’t do that.

[Rob Kozakowski]

The Rotax is just slow from a dead stop.  You can make very marginal improvements, but it’ll still be slow.

[Rob Kozakowski]

In Canada, I’m pretty sure we’re ok to run older cylinders.  We’re supposed to have the clutch/steel gear update, new airbox, and 8.5 carb – which many of the engines with older cylinders won’t have. 

If you’re buying an older one, there’s also normally no telling how many hours it really has on it, so you’re almost obliged to have the seal broken and inspected, in which case, you’d may as well refresh the top end.

Your best bet when buying a Rotax Max is definitely to get a completely updated engine – preferably with passport to see when it was last sealed (generally a reasonable indication of how many hours might be on the engine).  Otherwise, what seems like a “deal”, can turn expensive when you bring it up to current specs.

There’s lots of “good” deals (and truly bad ones) on karts with out-of-spec Rotax engines up here in Canada where Rotax is about all we have for 2-cycle racing.  I’ve been looking to get some friends into Rotax, and the first questions I ask when shopping for them is whether the engines are updated.

[Rob Kozakowski]

My comments on your general statement:

1.  I partially agree about what you say about sprint karts.  I’ll break your statement into 2 parts…

a) You certainly need “jacking” or weight transfer to help unload the inside rear.  Most any sprint kart should inherently have some ability to create some (enough?) “jacking” to get you around a corner, even if not entirely efficiently.  So I agree with this part – that you need jacking to “lift (unload might be more semantically correct) the inside rear”.

b) But, I don’t know that I’d quite say you use weight jacking to “control the removal of and application of weight to the rear tires”.  The “jacking” doesn’t really CONTROL anything, per se – it just ensures that the inside rear lifts or unloads.  What CONTROLS the amount and rate of lift / unloading are all of the numerous tuning factors (amount of camber, castor, toe, ackerman, frame, axle, hubs, wheels, etc…), in combination with the driver’s inputs.  The combo of tuning and driving is what dictates whether the “jacking” that is inherent in the design of the kart, is done efficiently and effectively or not.

2.  I won’t pretend to know much about LTO karts.  That said, I still don’t know that I’d agree with your choice of words when you say that the jacking CONTROLS things – just like a sprint kart, I’m inclined to say that the tuning and driver inputs are what CONTROL things.

Maybe it’s just semantics, but I don’t know how jacking “controls” anything.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I’d swap it out.

The LO206 is a great package.  At kid kart speeds, the already near-bullet proof engine won’t be stressed at all, and you can grow with it as you move to Cadets, etc.

The change-over should be easy.

Go to your kart shop and buy a Junior LO206 (it should come with air filter, pipe, silencer, clutch and fuel pump).  It might come with some fuel line too.  Get the shop to add a chain guard, and a mount that will fit your kid kart chassis.  That will be the “core” of your engine package.

I think you’ll need to buy and install a fuel tank and some fuel hose (if hose not included) – not a big deal.  Talk to the kart shop about it if you’re unsure what to get or how to install.  I would also buy some pipe wrap – it helps prevent burns.

Then you might need: chain, sprocket, throttle cable – if these can’t be carried over from what you have.

If the engines are brand new, there might even be shops willing to swap packages +/- a little cash.

The only downside to a LO206 on a kid kart is the physical size of the LO206 compared to the Comer 50 or a little Honda.  It looks a little out of place, but I wouldn’t let that stop me.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Haha!  Gary, you just got me thinking back to the days of Paul Harraka… always something interesting and often-times controversial back then…

You’re right though.  Controversy still exists, but I think a lot of the top karting teams and drivers are approaching some of the controversy in a much more – shall we say – “professional” manner than they did in the past.  It’s not just that it can do harm to the sport, but to the image of the driver as well.  More drivers are aware of this today than in the past and choose not to go public with their complaints.  In a lot of ways, this has hurt the “buzz” for those not in attendance at the big events – but that’s just more reason to go and be part of it.

I still remember going to the first 3 Supernats at X-Plex – when it was only shifters.  As much as I understand the reason for including TAG (and why it would hurt financially to get rid of it), it would be cool if the Supernats was still able to be all shifters.  The great thing back then was they had classes specifically for the guys who maybe didn’t belong in the S1/S2/top-level TAG classes.  The true “amateur” classes mixed into a program with the top-level guys  made the original event format real cool.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Jim, I sort of agree with your point about being the sole supplier of a spec item.  At the same time…

I highly doubt that MG has signed on the dotted line to provide exactly X number of tires on-site at each and every event, whether they will be used or not.  I’m sure they’d sign onto that agreement, provided fair terms for them… i.e. they get paid whether the tires get used or not.

This isn’t F1 where Pirelli will get a fixed fee to provide X number of tires at each event, whether the teams and cars show up or not.  If nobody shows up at a SKUSA event, MG doesn’t sell any tires – that’s a HUGE difference.

My guess is the MG deal with SKUSA provides SKUSA with better pricing than they would otherwise get, which allows SKUSA to make a little money on tires.

SKUSA, in turn, is not stupid and warns their customers to make sure they order (or otherwise secure) the tires they need well in advance of the events because they know that MG is “at risk” if they carry lots of excess inventory.

In other words, it would be stupid for MG to have thousands of sets of wet tires sitting in a warehouse somewhere in the USA – especially in mid-November – when there’s nothing to indicate that anybody wants to buy them.

The wet tires would have been there if the competitors has asked for them when they should have (and were told to).

[Rob Kozakowski]

Jim, I’ll actually agree with you and acknowledge there was a supply issue.  You’re also right that there wasn’t enough MG wets in the entire country to cover the event.  I honestly don’t see how anyone can dispute that.

But in the real world, sometimes supply issues are not the fault of the supplier, but the fault of the customers…

In this case, the supply issue was caused by the competitors not being prepared.  Why do I say this?

Because I don’t think that anyone who pre-ordered their tires from SKUSA or who came to Vegas with their own tires had problems getting them.

There weren’t enough MG wets in the entire country for the event, but there EASILY could have been if the competitors had demanded the tires in advance of the event.  So, again, it comes back to the competitors being at fault here.  Nobody else.

Seriously, how was MG (or the US supplier) supposed to know how many tires people would need?  I think the fair assumption would have been that people would have come prepared to the Supernats.  How many showed up to the Supernats without a kart and engine (either their own or a pre-arranged rental)?  My guess is a lot of people had a spare chassis and engine – even though, much like the tires, they were hoping not to use them.

[Author]

Posts