498cc Dohc twin allowed?
- Thread starter MBPhenom
- Start date
rotaryicon42
Member
I think its ok. there was one running in last years nationals. it ran really well. but some of the uas guys needs to get in on this. joe
With one engine change after another, ever seeking the "innovation" edge, that engine will likely be
legal within a year or so.
Gotta' now find something that will run or outrun the Jawa. JAWA was allowed to come around to outrun the 250 2 strokes, which came around to outrun the Wankel, which was allowed in order to outrun the Sudams.
These various stragedies have had mixed results but by golly, we got to keep on innovatin'.
Recent kart sold for $15,000.00. We STILL have not caught up, price expense wise with the F1 guys.
The new GM engine....(a superior type JAWA) only raises the engine costs $1,800.00. Chump change!
But NO WORRIES.....the racing is still the same, no better, no worse....and on a foundation intended for 5hp flatheads.
Taft Racing
Member
Good grief PD, it must be scary inside your line of thinking. The Wankle was not allowed in in order to out run the Sudam. It was allowed in cause it's a kart engine. The 250's were allowed in do to there single cylinder performance equality to twin 100cc 2cycle engines which have been legal for ever. The Jawa just happens to fall within the legal displacement of the 4 cycle engines allowed due to their performance equality to the twin 100cc 2 cycle again legal since for ever, and there for give the 4 cycle guys a engine package that won't scatter all over the race track soaking fellow racers with oil.
Now as for the foundation of karting lying at the feet of flathead lawn mower engines being converted to kart engines, that's another fallacy. The original kart engine was a 250cc drone 2cycle engine so for your information the introduction of the MX 250 is a direct correlation to the beginnings of kart racing end of story.
http://gokartsusa.com/history-of-karting.aspx
Now as for the foundation of karting lying at the feet of flathead lawn mower engines being converted to kart engines, that's another fallacy. The original kart engine was a 250cc drone 2cycle engine so for your information the introduction of the MX 250 is a direct correlation to the beginnings of kart racing end of story.
http://gokartsusa.com/history-of-karting.aspx
Unfortunately for the dreamy Mr.Taft........the process of engine metamorphosis in the UAS is exactly as I outlined it. Old 250's which were not allowed for 20 years in Unlimited racing....are not a relevant subject for this posting.
The Wankel had to recieve voted on approval, as it is not a piston engine. The piston engine, whether 2 or 4 stroke is and was
the foundation of Unlimited racing.....and before that, kart racing.
When considering the why of Wankel admittance (which is not allowed in any series which includes piston engines, worldwide) the sea change in displacement in fact WAS because ot the oncoming dominance of the Wankel. This is obvious, this is a fact known to all Unlimited type racers who were around 10 yrs. or more ago.....and is historically correct.
The "foundation" I mention was not very clear. I was intending to reference the chassis/tire/rim "foundation" which was built on the
engines available 50+ years ago. That was a rather abrupt change of subject on my part.....not well clarified....my bad.
When considering the mysterious admittance of a wildly different engine for kart racing, one must always follow the sage advise of "Follow the Money".
The Wankel had to recieve voted on approval, as it is not a piston engine. The piston engine, whether 2 or 4 stroke is and was
the foundation of Unlimited racing.....and before that, kart racing.
When considering the why of Wankel admittance (which is not allowed in any series which includes piston engines, worldwide) the sea change in displacement in fact WAS because ot the oncoming dominance of the Wankel. This is obvious, this is a fact known to all Unlimited type racers who were around 10 yrs. or more ago.....and is historically correct.
The "foundation" I mention was not very clear. I was intending to reference the chassis/tire/rim "foundation" which was built on the
engines available 50+ years ago. That was a rather abrupt change of subject on my part.....not well clarified....my bad.
When considering the mysterious admittance of a wildly different engine for kart racing, one must always follow the sage advise of "Follow the Money".
Taft Racing
Member
Not sure why you feel to make a personal attack on me PD when its you that can't get your facts correct.
Karting came into existence with a 2 cycle 250. Thats the bottom line. The flat head is a bastered engine that crept into karting not the other way around. 2 cycle engines were and still are the engine of karting history. The wankle is a inferior engine design . sorry to break the news to you. Dominance of a particular driver does not constitute dominance of his engine choice. Follow the money? Funny comment there again based in little or no fact. The low cost if high hp from the engine choice you hate so much as driven the sport to its highest levels ever. You seem to be lost in some sort of dream of your own. The industrial based engine has never been able to compete with purpose built race engines. Maybe you'll get it some day. But then I doubt it.
I was going to post a lenghty rebuttal to Mr.TT's disengenuous and irrelevant (argument based on 1950 9 hp 2cycle engine) posting above.
Upon further review.....I discarded that idea, and chose rather, to post his brief comment........
TTaft said:
This is a stunning revelation to most "power" karters, whether involved with 2 or 4 cycle engines.
It is akin....and as valid as asserting that: Quote ....the earth is flat...
Taft Racing
Member
Buy a wankle PD 300cc internal combustion engine I'll build a KTM 300 sx. And join you at any track drag strip oval dirt or pavement any where any time and demonstrate your lack of IQ and flat earth termonology. Put up or shut up.
Try and base any further comments with some fact instead of your mindless ramblings
Try and base any further comments with some fact instead of your mindless ramblings
TTaft said:
(Mr.TT.....please quote that part of my posting which is either rambling or mindless.....as I have posted your quote above which brings to question your mental acuity, if not stability..... Thank you!)
So the strength of your argument lies in ME puchasing something expensive, which I have no desire or use for whatever, to race a 300cc 2 cycle which YOU bring....which is UAS illegal.....and then meeting in Dodge City, outside Kitty's saloon for a high noon shootout.
Now...that will PROVE that the Wankel is an inferior engine design?
For a good story tho, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1065269/4/index.htm ....... it's a good story about "Big Daddy" who just lost his wife.
Taft Racing
Member
This post alone demonstrates your mindless ramblings. You contend that karting was designed for the flathead. Wrong! It was designed with a 250 2 cycle. You contend the current system was altered to compete with the wankle. Wrong again! The current engine packages were allowed based off the twin 2 cycle which dates back before any flat head entered the system. It's your contention that the wankle is a superior design compared to any piston driven engine. I simply challenge your contention cc vs cc. UAS rules have nothing to do with the engineering premise. Buy one borrow one rent one I don't care. Displacement vs displacement a 2 cycle will absolutely trounce your beloved wankle, same goes for any 4 stroke. The 2 cycle piston driven engine is by far and away the top of the ladder in engineering and design. Your constant brain dead assertions are your mindless ramblings. Its old its tired and you have nothing to offer ever except the same old anti uas dribble. I gave you a challenge put up or shut up . You post off your twisted view of reality. I'm just offering you a dose of reality.
I'll alow your your last word as always and give this high jacked thread back to its right full owner. Good luck in your fantasy and non factual world PD.
dang guys this turned into a big debate ,funny . all it is is that im having a hard time getting my mx stuff together everything is so expensive right now where i live but mr taft if i go two cycle your my man for the case and jack shaft set up ,but on the other hand i still have my yz450f engine still in pieces and i really want to be innovative ive always been that way im a mechanic by trade and a hot rodder by night i kinda want something different not so much alot of power but consistent power that puts it out smoothly and controllably ive ridden two cycle and four cycle karts and bikes to me 2 stoke is either on or off 4 cycle mx engines tend to be the same but at diff rpms . i understand that it can all be controlled by the pipe gear carb ect, i just want to find something different. why are the big block clones and gx 390 engines so bad i think they are a good choice because of the fact that power ouit put is so smooth and consistent please give some input on my thoughts and go ahead and feel free to disagree
Yup - seen that a couple of years ago. How perfect would that be?
Ted Hamilton
Helmet Painter / Racer
Industrials aren't "bad" per se, but the work and money required to get them to comparable power output doesn't last very long as they become unreliable and you have to re-invest more time, money, and parts to keep going fast. Additionally, because you're bastardizing the engines for a purpose they were never intended for, the aftermarket parts availability is typically less and pricier. That said, there's a certain satisfaction in taking one and beating the "real race engines." If you machined your own parts, that satisfaction is even higher. But in the end, you have a one-off engine that is only viable to resell if you can demonstrate that it's competitive... Going with the mainstream engine types for racing/competition you have better resale options, more parts availability, and more sources for help. It's like driving a Lotus Esprit vs. a Corvette. There's 100,000 other Vette's out there just like yours and they're still wicked fun to drive, but you know you're not the only one around. The Esprit driver gets the satisfaction of uniqueness and raked over the coals for parts. You pays your money and you makes your choice....
All I can say at this point is I've read the rule book and as it states if in not in the rules is its problaby legal right I've got some stuff in mind ,a couple of engines I've not seen mentioned that I know for a fact are powerful well see what happens I'm a poor boy and have always been and in every class I've been competitive and most of the time I've built my own junk
Taft Racing
Member
Thats what the UAS is for new thinking home built stuff. Innovation creativity. My rants on the 2 cycle do not mean Thats my vision of UAS racing. On the contrary . I believe the mx based 4 cycles along with speedway and industrial based engines will do as much or more for the growth of our sport.
The fact guys like you and I can make stuff in our garage and compete on a national level is the most exciting aspect . if I can help with anything you want to try I'm all in.
GeorgeHenry
New member
You guys can run for PINK SLIPS the winner that's the loser kart home.
Where did I do that? Surely you know it's a lie to attribute that satement or concept to me.
Yep, a Drone 2 cycle producing 9 hp.....hardly lends itself to this discussion. To do so fully demonstrates a liar or a fool. This info comes from the site you cited.TTaft said:
REALLY?TTaft said:
Wow....those early Wankel buyers went a long way and spent a lot of $$$ to beat the dead and buried 9 hp Drone engines. The $8000 Wankel was allowed to challenge the all conquering twin 100's. Even more amazing that the all powerful twin 100's won few if any races worthy of note. Old Charlie, the Yow's and the other guys who came on with their Wankels and won so many races that their weight had to be radically raised.....were just imagining things. How many point champs did they win....BEFORE...the new weights and displacement rules came about? TWO straight. How many since? None. The Rotaries were to the piston guys as the Seahawks were to the Bronco's until the new rules came out.TTaft said:
Of course a rotary design is superior to a reciprocating design engineering wise.TTaft said:
I will look for the 2 cycle to win the Indy 500, and win a few F1 races.....given their superiority. Oh, and except that guys have sunk a lot of good money into them, I'd entirely oppose Wankel.TTaft said:
It must be lonely at the intellectual top of the engineering ladder, eh?TTaft said:
Better start overpowering the legal JAWA before taking me on.TTaft said:
Every single one of the assertions you make here is wrong, if not a lie. I hope not a lie. Oh, and I love UAS racing, and have always promoted it.